Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Stretford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords].

Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [Lords].

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords].

Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords].

Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords].

Referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Air Ministry (Kenley Common Acquisition) Bill,—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable
thereto have been complied with, namely:

Air Ministry (Kenley Common Acquisition) Bill.

Durham County Water Board Bill,

Metropolitan Railway Bill,

Sheffield Gas Company Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Worthing Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill, South Staffordshire Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Railways (West Scottish Group) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 27th April.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL DECORATIONS.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in qualifying for the Territorial decoration, an officer's active service in the recent War counts more than service in peace time towards making the necessary 20 years' service that qualifies him for the decoration; and whether the same privilege extends to service in the South African War?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): Yes, Sir; under certain conditions such service in the recent War counts double, but this does not apply to service in the South African War.

CAMELRY CORPS.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the total strength of the camelry corps in various parts of the Empire; and whether the question has been considered of
modernising camel equipment with a view especially to reducing the weight of the present camel pack-saddle?

Sir R. SANDERS: The following is the strength of the various camel corps:

Somaliland:

15 officers, 395 other ranks, reserve 127.

Sudan:

7 British and 31 other officers, 938 other ranks.

India (including Aden):

35 British officers, 1,789 Indian officers and other ranks, 6,925 followers.

The question of standardising camel pack equipment and of reducing the weight is now under consideration; trials have already been carried out and investigations are still proceeding.

BRIGADE MAJORS, TERRITORIAL ARMY.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that certain brigade majors of Territorial brigades received in writing on their appointment about two years ago a promise that they were to hold their appointments for four years; and if it is intended to keep faith with these officers, who are now being warned that their appointments are to terminate?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware that certain Brigade Majors of Territorial Brigades were told that their appointments would be "permanent appointments," i.e., appointments the normal tenure of which is for four years. I regret that it has been necessary to abolish the majority of these appointments in the interests of economy. The officers effected will be dealt with under Article 206 of the Royal Warrant, which provides that on the abolition of a staff appointment of which the ordinary tenure is four years the officer holding it may, provided he has not served the full period for which he was appointed, receive his staff pay for a period of 61 days beyond the date of ceasing to do duty.

Captain GEE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many of these officers, including the A.D.M.S., were civilians who gave up large and lucrative
practices in order to fulfil these engagements, which have been broken?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware that there are certain cases of hardship.

GENERAL STAFF OFFICERS (EDUCATION).

Mr. RAPER: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the rank of G.S.O.3(E) has been abolished, he will state what pay the officers who now perform these duties are drawing?

Sir R. SANDERS: Officers at Command Headquarters, whose duties were formerly carried out by the General Staff Officers, Grade 3 (E), now draw the pay of their rank.

WAR GRAVES (PHOTOGRAPHS).

Major BARNES: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that photographing of war graves undertaken by the War Office out of funds provided by the British Red Cross Society has now ceased and that the Imperial War Graves Commission has not undertaken the work, declaring that it has no power under its charter and is unable to assist persons desirous of having photographs of graves; and whether, in view of the disappointment, particularly to poor relatives, he will consider the possibility of enabling this work to be undertaken by the Imperial War Graves Commission or, alternatively, of giving them power to make arrangements with private photographers to supply the photographs which are required?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware of the circumstances referred to and the question of arranging for the photographs in question is being 'carefully and sympathetically considered.

Major BARNES: If I put down a question at a later date, may I get an answer?

Sir R. SANDERS: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the approximate number and present disposition of the land forces and air forces operating with the Army in Ireland?

Sir R. SANDERS: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to publish this information.

Viscount CURZON: Is it true, as stated in the Press, that the evacuation of Ireland by the Army has been stopped?

Sir R. SANDERS: That does not arise out of the original question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): There is absolutely no truth in the rumour that any change has taken place.

INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. WATERSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state when the Irish Indemnity Bill will be introduced; and whether the proposed Commission to inquire into the claims for compensation in respect of damage to property has yet been appointed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am still unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 28th March.

Mr. WATERSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to state a date for the introduction of this Bill, seeing that we have had the question down for three weeks, and will he reply to the latter portion of the question, as to the proposed Commission, and the names of the Commissioners?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commission will be set up almost immediately, and the Bill will be introduced after Easter. I cannot say exactly when.

CIVIL SERVANTS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Southern Irish civil servants are at liberty to voluntarily retire without the permission of the Civil Service Committee under the statutory conditions laid down in Schedule 8 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; if so, are they entitled to have the seven years' transitionary period added to their service; and whether Irish prison officers, who may retire under the said Act either with or without the permission of the Civil Service Committee, or who may be compelled to retire, are entitled to have every
year which may be added over 30 to count as two in accordance with the provisions of the Prison Officers Superannuation Act, 1919?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, provides that Irish officers may retire voluntarily under the statutory conditions of retirement without the permission of the Civil Service Committee, and that any officer who may so retire may reckon his years of service for the purpose of calculating his compensation allowances as if he had served up to the end of the transitional period, or to the time when he would have reached the age of 65, whichever may be the earlier. I am advised that the provisions of the Prison Officers Superannuation Act, 1919, would apply to any prison officer retiring under these conditions. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, Article 10 of the Treaty provides that any public servant who may retire in consequence of the change of Government shall receive compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations and discussions which were stated by him on 27th February last to be proceeding between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the Provisional Government as to the terms on which the public servants mentioned in Article 10 of the Treaty are to retire on pension or be discharged, have now been concluded; whether he will state the result, and say whether those persons have the option of retiring on a pension; with what period that option must be exercised; and whether the Irish Free State Government will be entitled to discharge all or any of such persons without cause assigned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Subject to the qualification clearly laid down in Article 10 of the Treaty that the public servants therein referred to who may be discharged by the Free State Government, or who may retire in consequence of the change of Government shall be entitled to fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920, and to the provisions of Article 7 (ii) and 8 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions)
Order, 1922, which apply this qualification to the period during which the Provisional Government remains in office and secure during that period to officers transferred to that Government their existing tenure. The matters referred to by the hon. and learned Member in the second, third and fourth parts of the question are matters which can properly be dealt with in the Free State Constitution, or in the Act confirming that Constitution and will be discussed with the Provisional Government prior to the publication of the Constitution. In the meantime I am not in a position to give a more definite reply on those points.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the great importance of this question to a very large number of public servants in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the matters referred to in this question are to be mentioned in the House, and the terms announced to the House, before being finally settled in the Bill embodying the Constitution of the Free State?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would like to have notice of that question.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that we have been told we cannot alter the Bill dealing with the Constitution of the Free State, and unless we have an opportunity beforehand of discussing those matters, it may be too late to do so at all?

OUTRAGES.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Viscount CURZON:
24. To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet decided to accept the invitation of the Provisional Government to inquire into the murder of Lieutenant Genochio; whether any steps have yet been taken to effect the release of the special constables captured at Clones; whether he is aware of the place of their detention and of their treatment and condition; and on what ground they are detained?

Viscount CURZON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies the first part of Question No. 24.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will, I am sure, recognise that the existing conditions in County Cork render the holding of such an inquiry impracticable at the present moment; but
I still hope that it may be possible to arrange for an inquiry at an early date.
In reply to the remainder of the question, which my hon. and gallant Friend omitted to put, I am glad to be able to inform the House that these men were released yesterday and have, I understand, returned to their homes.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will any compensation be paid to these men who have now been under duress for two months?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a question of which I should have notice.

Sir W. DAVISON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that trains arriving at Dundalk and other stations from Northern Ireland are continually being searched by armed men and goods from Northern Ireland removed and burnt; whether any steps have been taken by the Provisional Government to arrest and bring to justice persons committing these and similar crimes elsewhere; whether any persons have so far been arrested and punished and, if so, how many; if the Provisional Government are unwilling or unable to secure life and property; and what action the British Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to these outrages which, as the hon. Member must be aware, are committed as much for the purpose of embarrassing the Provisional Government as of injuring the trade of Belfast. I am assured that the Provisional Government are fully alive to the necessity of taking adequate measures for the restoration of order in the territory within their jurisdiction, but they are confronted with many difficulties which cannot be overcome in a day.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of difficulties being overcome in a day, but that these occurrences have been going on for months, and will he answer the second part of the question as to whether any persons so far have been arrested or punished?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, at any rate, the British taxpayer
will not have to pay compensation in these cases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Provisional Government accept the position entirely that the local authorities are responsible for malicious injuries in Ireland as from the date of the signing of the Treaty.

Sir W. DAVISON: Have any persons been arrested or punished?

Lord R. CECIL: Have any Orders in Council yet been issued transferring powers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The main, essential important Order in Council has already been issued. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), I think it is very unlikely that anybody has been arrested or punished for these nefarious acts, but my hon. Friend is aware of the state of affairs in Ireland at the present moment. I have no doubt in the long run persons will be fully and thoroughly punished for these acts.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will it be practicable for the owners of these goods to recover their value from the county councils in whose areas these outrages occur, or to whom must they look for compensation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Matters are, to a considerable extent, in a state of flux at the present time, and I should hesitate to attempt to give any practical guidance at the moment. I am confident in the long run these matters will be settled satisfactorily.

Viscount CURZON: Is the number of these outrages tending to increase?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I think they have been maintaining a fairly even level during the last few weeks.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Income Tax which has not been assessed or in any way verified is being deducted from the pensions granted to disbanded men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with a promise that, if it is found later that the amount has been wrongly deducted, it will be readjusted; whether he is aware that this deduction is causing great distress to these men, whose
pension is already insufficient to enable them to maintain themselves and their families and who are unable to obtain work; and whether he will give directions that this practice of deducting Income Tax before assessment shall be at once discontinued and that no Income Tax shall be deducted from the pension until it has been properly assessed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The hon. and learned Member's question presumably refers to the case of men recruited in Great Britain and disbanded before the end of the last financial year. The Income Tax assessments in these cases were made on the footing of the men being on full pay for the whole year, and were, therefore, excessive to the extent of the difference between full pay and pension as from the date of disbandment, which would be on or after the 1st February last. Arrears of Income Tax for the past year are being deducted by monthly instalments from pension, the amount of each instalment being £1. The final assessments will be adjusted in every case with as little delay as possible. I would point out that this tax is long overdue, and that it was incumbent on the men themselves, who were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the approximate amount of their liability, to make provisions for its payment before the end of the financial year.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend consider the case of men, of whom there are many, for whom Income Tax has not been definitely assessed, who are only provisionally assessed, and who get amounts deducted from their pay which cause very great hardship and distress?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not understand the matter referred to in the hon. and learned Member's question to fall within that category.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 84.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the British Government will continue to be responsible for the payment of the pensions of officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who retired on pension before the signature of the Treaty and will undertake not to transfer their responsibility for these pensions to the Irish Free State Government?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): Subject to any necessary financial adjustments between the two Governments and to such arrangements as may be found convenient for the actual issue of pensions, His Majesty's Government is, and will remain, responsible for the due payment of these pensions.

Sir J. BUTCHER: "Subject to readjustment"—what does the right hon. Gentleman mean? Does he mean that the British Government are going to continue to pay their just debts, or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The qualification is necessary for dealing with very large sums of public money, but the essentials are embodied in the answer, namely, that His Majesty's Government is, and will remain responsible for the due payment of these pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NON-CO-OPERATION MOVEMENT.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can give any estimate of the extra expenditure that has been entailed upon the Government of India owing to the non-co-operation movement which has been allowed to run on so long unchecked?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): It is not possible to give any estimate of this expenditure. Most of it must have fallen hot on the Government of India but on local governments. My hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware that the Commander-in-Chief impressed upon the Legislative Assembly the seriousness of the expenditure which had been entailed by moving troops to aid the civil powers.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it a fact, as stated in the Press, that this movement is now dying?

Earl WINTERTON: That does not arise out of the original question, which inquired as to the expenditure.

SEDITION, BOMBAY.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the extremists in Bombay are arranging for a sedition campaign to conclude with an All-India
hartal; and will he state whether any action is contemplated by the Indian Government?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen reports in the Press of this subject, but the Secretary of State has not received any official information of it, and it may therefore be presumed that the Government of India attach no special importance to the matter.

PENSIONS (INSURANCE).

Sir C. YATE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will supplement the conviction expressed in the late Secretary of State's despatch to the Government of India regarding the pensions of officers of the Civil Services in India by making arrangements with insurance companies in the United Kingdom by which both civil and military officers serving under the Government of India will be enabled to insure at a reasonable rate the payment of the pension accruing to them despite any change that may be brought about in the Government of India in the future?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will confer with me and explain the nature of the arrangements he has in mind as being possible for the Secretary of State to make.

Sir C. YATE: Is the Noble Lord not aware that in this despatch the late Secretary of State said that he had a conviction that no future Secretary of State would be found wanting in his duty in insuring this obligation. Cannot the Noble Lord give any more definite assurance to the civil servants of India?

Earl WINTERTON: That is not the question asked. My hon. and gallant Friend wanted to know whether it was possible to make any pension insurance arrangements. If he will confer with me and tell me what his proposals are I will consider them carefully.

Sir C. YATE: In my question I suggest that the officers should be able to insure the payment of these pensions. Can the Noble Lord make arrangements accordingly?

Earl WINTERTON: It is not part of the business of any Government to insure pensions to civil servants. But if my hon. and gallant Friend will com-
municate with me and say what he proposes, I will see whether it is possible to help in the matter.

PUNJAB REBELLION (TREATMENT OF OFFICERS).

Sir C. YATE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now give the result of his inquiry into the statements contained in the letter of Sir Michael O'Dwyer, in the Press of the 7th November, 1921, exposing the unfair treatment of officers, civil and military, who took an active part in suppressing the Punjab rebellion of 1919; and, in view of the additional facts brought out in that letter, if he can state what steps the Government intend to take to safeguard the future prospects and to prevent the further persecution of those officers, British and Indian, who have been and are so seriously affected by the orders issued, as shown on page 50 of the Government's Review of India in 1920?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have seen the letter referred to. So far as the actual events of 1919 are concerned, no additional facts are brought to light. His Majesty's Government, after careful consideration of the Hunter Committee's Reports and the views of the Government of India, found it necessary to express disapproval of certain officers' errors of judgment, which in most, though not all, cases had taken the form of undue severity. In some instances officers, who did very good work in a position of great difficulty, had to be censured for particular actions which were ill-advised; and it should not be supposed that their good record is cancelled by the fact that they made mistakes. In such instances the officer's future is in his own hands, and many officers, civil and military, who have in difficult circumstances shown error of judgment, have successfully vindicated their reputations by subsequent good work. His Majesty's Government is unable to reopen the inquiry in the case of these officers. It is unfortunately true that, in spite of all that has been said and done to promote better feeling, a residuum of bitterness remains in the Punjab, which results in manifestations of social and personal enmity against
those who took part or aided in restoring order in 1919. Indians, whether Government servants or not, are more exposed to suffer from such manifestations than British, and it is impossible for any Government completely to neutralise the effects, but I know that the Viceroy regards the protection of those who have deserved well of the State as a paramount duty, and he will be equally ready to attach full weight to good service rendered, both before and since 1919, by officers who then incurred any measure of blame.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Viceroy and ask him to put a stop to these officers being held up to opprobrium as having been censured for acts in connection with the Punjab rebellion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is really covered by the answer I have already given.

BRITISH ARMY OFFICERS (SURPLUS).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any letter has been recently circulated by the Indian Government to all British officers in the Indian Army stating that, as two-thirds of the total establishment are surplus, it is proposed to make an offer to all surplus officers of a sum of money on the condition that they resign their commissions; if this is so, whether any such offer has yet been made and how much it is proposed to pay by way of compensation to the officers concerned for the sudden termination of their military career; and if such offer will take into account that in the majority of cases these officers have had no training whatever for any appointment in civil life and provide adequate compensation to ensure that all officers concerned will be able to fit themselves for civilian appointments free from undue financial embarrassment?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no official information as to the circulation of such a letter, but am sure that the surplus cannot have been stated at a figure so wide of the mark. It is the case that a large number of retirements will shortly be carried out to eliminate an excess existing almost entirely in the junior ranks. Compensation will be on the same general basis as that to be given
to surplus officers of the British Service, to whom the same considerations apply. But in fixing it the fact will be taken into account that pay and pensions are higher in the Indian Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON (PESTS).

Mr. DOYLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the serious loss in the raw cotton crops in America, Egypt, and elsewhere by insect pests, what help has been rendered by the Colonial Office to growers in various parts of the British Empire to counteract the ravages of such pests; what steps are being taken to materially assist the growth of raw cotton in the Australian Commonwealth and other parts of the Empire; and if he will give the sums spent during the past 12 months for this purpose?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to say that most of the Colonies and Protectorates have escaped the worst ravages of the pests which have done harm in America and Egypt. All imported cotton seed is carefully examined, and insect pests have up to date been kept in check by the efforts of the various Colonial Agricultural Departments. The need for strengthening these Departments, especially on the entomological side, has been appreciated and met to the fullest extent possible, compatible with due economy in administration. The efforts made by His Majesty's Government to foster the production of cotton within the Empire have recently culminated in the gift of £978,215 to the funds of the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation upon certain conditions. When these conditions are fulfilled, the corporation will undertake active measures to promote the cultivation of cotton in the Empire, but I am quite unable to say to what extent its operations will apply to any particular territory.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is that Government money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is money made out of a deal which we did in Egypt in regard to the sale of cotton during the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

DISTURBANCES, NAIROBI.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any natives of Nairobi were shot down before any hostile act against the police was made; and whether at any time a single policeman, soldier, or white man was in any way injured by those who were demanding the release of Harry Thuku?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that I am still unable to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on the 29th March, as no despatch has yet been received from the Governor of Kenya.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Shall I repeat the question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: After Easter.

LAND ALIENATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that it is now five months since a Return was requested of the total area of land alienated in Kenya Colony since 1914, and over seven months since he requested the Governor to submit a draft amendment to the Compulsory Labour Ordinance; and whether he can say to what cause this delay is due?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already drawn the attention of the Governor of Kenya by telegram to the long delay in the receipt of the draft amendment to the Native Authority Ordinance which, I have ascertained, is being sent home by the next mail. I will also communicate with the Governor in regard to the other matter dealt with in the hon. Member's question, but I may observe that his description of the subject is not in accordance with that in the question put by the hon. Member for Leigh on the 26th of October, which gave rise to the inquiry now outstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL GOVERNORS (SECRETARIES).

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any suggestion has reached
him from the Colonies with regard to the desirability of the appointments of secretaries to Colonial Governors being held in future by officials of the Colonial Office; if so, whether he has considered the matter; and whether, seeing that such officials would thereby acquire a first-hand knowledge of Colonial conditions, which would, on their return to the Colonial Office in London, be of the greatest value to the State and to our Colonial administration, and would tend to facilitate relations between the Crown Colonies and this House, he will consider the adoption of this suggestion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part therefore does not arise. Secretaries to Governors are members of the Governor's personal staff and it would be difficult to second an officer from the Colonial Office to serve in such a capacity. My predecessors and I fully realise the advantage gained by making arrangements whenever possible for officials from the Colonial Office to visit Colonies, and no reasonable opportunity for such visits is missed, but there are serious difficulties in the way of laying down any stereotyped rules as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS (FIRE).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information regarding the nature and extent of the fire at Nassau, Bahamas; what is the estimated damage; whether the Bahamas Government have decided to close the court of Bimini; and for what reasons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have seen a Press telegram on the subject of the fire, but have not received any official report from the Governor about it. I will make inquiry as to the court at Bimini and inform my hon. Friend of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGITIMATION.

Captain BOWYER: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now say when the Bill will be introduced dealing with legitimation by subsequent marriage?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I hope a Bill will be introduced shortly after the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 27.
asked the Home Secretary what will be the approximate saving to local authorities, apart from the saving to the national Exchequer, if one register, instead of two, was made annually?

Mr. SHORTT: As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 1st March, the yearly saving which would result on having an annual register only is estimated approximately at £250,000 in all. As the expense of registration is shared equally by the Exchequer and the rates, the approximate saving to local authorities would accordingly be £125,000 per annum.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if we have only one register per annum, it will mean the disfranchisement of very large numbers of men and women?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, FYFIELD.

Mr. W. THORNE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the very bad accommodation that exists at the Fyfield Industrial School, near Ongar, which is under the control of the West Ham Corporation; that, so far as bathing arrangements are concerned, there is an omnibus bath at present in vogue, and that the boys bathe in batches of 20 at a time, the same water being used by the whole of the boys; if he is aware of the sick room and lavatory accommodation and the bad arrangements for cooking; that the West Ham Corporation have applied for a loan to make the necessary alterations to the school and make it sanitary in every particular; and that a letter has been sent to the town clerk to the West Ham Corporation to the effect that the Secretary of State regrets that he would not be justified in approving the proposed expenditure for the purpose of any Government grants; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that the conditions at this school in certain respects are far from satisfactory. The necessary alteration of the buildings would, however, require the expenditure of a large sum, and as adequate accommodation of a suitable kind in other industrial schools is available for the children I should not feel justified in approving the proposed capital expenditure, half of which would fall upon the Exchequer.

Mr. W. THORNE: Were not these recommendations brought before the notice of the West Ham authority by one of His Majesty's inspectors as far back as 1914; and were not plans submitted by the local authority to the Home Office in March, 1921, and were not the plans sanctioned by the Home Office?

Mr. SHORTT: That may be so, but at the present time there is ample suitable accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRADE (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether the sums given in column 3 in the table relating to State management of the liquor trade, published on the 28th March, 1922, amounting in the aggregate to about £489,129, have been repaid to the Exchequer in replacement of capital cost; and will he state what sums were accumulated out of profits in each year, previous to the period covered by the table, and the amounts repaid to the Exchequer out of such profits towards the replacement of capital cost?

Mr. SHORTT: As the answer is rather long, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts accruing to the Exchequer towards replacement of capital cost, both in respect of the three years covered by the table given in my previous answer and in respect of the previous period, are as follows:

£
s.
d.


For the period to 31st March, 1918
164,733
12
8


For the next three years
377,101
4
8*


Total, to 31st March, 1921
541,834
17
4

* Namely: £489,129, the figure quoted in the question from the table given in the previous answer, less £112,028, the total of the figures given for interest in that table.

The hon. and gallant Member will notice that in this and my previous answer, as well as in the published accounts, the phrase used is not "repaid to the Exchequer," but "accruing to the Exchequer"—the reason being that the undertakings are financed by the Exchequer, and that the surplus takings accumulated at the end of a year or other period, after the charges and expenses up to date have been met, are used to reduce the amounts advanced or payable by the Exchequer either by being applied to purposes for which Exchequer advances would otherwise have to be made, or by being actually paid into the Exchequer in repayment of the net outstanding-Exchequer advances.

I do not mean to imply that there is any substantial inaccuracy in the hon. and gallant Member's phrase "repaid to the Exchequer," but I have thought it advisable to set out the position in technically correct language.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPORTATION ORDER (JOSEPH PONOROFSKY).

Mr. KILEY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision to deport Joseph Ponorofsky, who was fined £20 for frequenting a gambling house and sentenced to one month's imprisonment for failing to notify his change of address, in view of the fact that he has been in this country since the age of three, is married to an English-born wife, and has four children, and also in view of the good character received on behalf of this man from his former employers, provided a guarantee is given of future good conduct; and, if not, what provision does he propose to make to prevent his wife and four young children from becoming a burden upon the rates of East London?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The man was recommended for deportation by the Court which was no doubt aware of all material circumstances, and after further inquiry into the man's
record in this country I can find no grounds for setting the recommendation aside. Unfortunately when a man renders himself liable to imprisonment or deportation it is a frequent consequence that his family are deprived of his support, but this is not a reason for refraining from administering the law.

Mr. KILEY: In view of the severity of these punishments for technical offences, would the Home Secretary consider the advisability of setting up a tribunal of some kind to consider these cases and advise him on what action should be taken, rather than continuing the terrible sentences now inflicted?

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend is entirely misinformed. These were not technical offences; these were serious crimes.

Mr. KILEY: What, these! They are committed every day in the week.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEER FORESTS COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 34.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has received the Report of the Deer Forests Committee; and, if so, when will it be published?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Report is at present in the hands of the printers and will, I hope, be published within a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TEUSPHONE SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view to popularising the trunk system and assuring the Subscribers full time allowance for conversation, he is prepared to give instructions for time to commence to run when communication has been established with the individual required, and not, as at present, when the number asked for has been obtained?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): I regret that I am unable to entertain this proposal, which would involve a considerable increase in the num-
ber of trunk lines and operators and would virtually convert all trunk calls into what are known in the United States as "particular person" calls, where an extra charge of 25 per cent, or 50 per cent, is made for this service.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that in many instances it is impossible for a tenant to obtain a lease for a full period of 12 months; whether he is aware that a telephone contract must be undertaken for the minimum period of one year; and whether he can see his way to modify such a contract in the case of those desiring a telephone service, but whose tenancy does not hold good for that length of time?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Where service is required for a short period, it can be provided on payment of a proportionate rental plus the cost of providing and recovering the necessary wires and apparatus or at a year's rental, whichever is the less.

Mr. WILLIAM CARTER: 37.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are many complaints by telephone subscribers of being overcharged on their telephone accounts; and, if so, whether he will take such steps as will establish an improved system of checking calls, and so give confidence to subscribers and ensure accuracy?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Post Office system of recording telephone calls is the most efficient which has yet been devised, and is in use in all countries where the telephone is extensively developed, including the United States of America; but every new suggestion is explored with a view to improvements.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints of being overcharged in the United States of America are nothing like what they are here?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should advise my hon. and gallant Friend to read some of the American humorous papers, and he would not then come to that conclusion.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had extensive experience of what goes on in the United States and also here, and that there is no question about the difference?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman not assured the House that it is impossible for us to do what they do in the United States of America in regard to trunk calls, as he last week assured us it was impossible for us to do what they do in Spain?

Mr. KELLAWAY: On the contrary, I said it was impossible for us to do it in this country unless we made a charge equivalent to that which is made in the United States.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: But surely what is good enough to pay a private concern in America is good enough in this country.

ELECTION PROPAGANDA (POSTAGE).

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General the approximate extra cost, in addition to the cost of the ordinary daily post delivery, of the distribution of a candidate's election address, or other election propaganda, to 25,000 voters in one district, in envelopes directed from the voting lists and de livered to the post office in separate packets for each street, and in numerical order; whether such extra cost would amount to as much as £10, as compared with the present postage charge of more than £100; and will he consider the advisability of charging rates for this special service compatible with the cost of a house-to-house delivery, privately undertaken?

Mr. KELLAWAY: In view of the different conditions prevailing in different areas, I doubt if any estimate of cost could be made, but I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

POSTAL RATES.

Mr. STURROCK: 39.
asked the Post master-General whether he is aware that the printing and allied trades, which recently sent a deputation to him on the question of the adverse effect on their industry of the present postal rates, are anxious to know the decision of the Cabinet on the proposed revision of rates; and whether he will announce that decision before Parliament rises for the Easter Recess?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware of the anxiety of the printing and allied trades in this matter. The question of the re-
duction of rates is under consideration by the Government, and I am not in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

Mr. STURROCK: In view of that answer, I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

LABOUR CORPS (PETER GIBBONS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Peter Gibbons, No. 390,334, Labour Corps, served in the Connaught Rangers and in the Royal Irish Fusiliers before transference to the Labour Corps; that he enlisted as an A 1 man and was discharged, after several attacks of malaria, as B 3, with the result that he can no longer follow his occupation as a pit worker; that he received a pension of 20s. per week and later a pension of 7s. 6d. for 104 weeks, but of which only £5 have been paid as final settlement; that he appealed and was successful, but no payment has yet been made; and whether he will inquire into the full service record of this man and his physical condition when he enlisted in November, 1914?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): This man's disablement from malaria being less than 20 per cent., he is not entitled to compensation other than by way of gratuity or final weekly allowance for a limited period. He has never received pension, but he has been paid £39, mostly in weekly sums, on the basis of his condition as found by three Medical Boards, including a Medical Appeal Board.

DECEASED OFFICERS (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now given further consideration to the serious injustice suffered by children of deceased officers by reason of the fact that the allowances granted to them by Royal Warrants have been included with the income of their mothers, thereby rendering the said allowances subject to Income
Tax; and whether, seeing that it is specifically provided in the Royal Warrant of 1914 that the allowance is an allowance to the children and not to the mother, and that in subsequent warrants the allowances were paid to the children through the mothers only for the administrative convenience of the Government, and not with the object of providing an additional income for the widow or revenue for the Exchequer, he will remove this anomaly?

Mr. YOUNG: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 21st March. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are advised that when re-assessed under the Royal Warrants of 1917 and 1920, allowances in respect of children of deceased officers, originally granted under the Royal Warrant of 1914, fall for Income Tax purposes into the same category as allowances granted under the later Warrants, as being allowances by way of increased pension to the mothers. No distinction falls to be made, therefore, between the two classes of case.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, even in the Royal Warrant of 1st July, 1920, it is provided that if, in the opinion of the Ministry of Pensions, it becomes necessary to secure the proper care of a child on behalf of whom the allowance is payable, the allowance, instead of being paid to the widow, may be administered under such conditions as the Ministry may determine? Is it not clear from this that, if the allowance is payable to the widow, it is on behalf of the child?

Mr. YOUNG: My memory does not hold the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I take it from him that it is so. But, even so, I do not think that the legal consequences can be drawn from that Clause which my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

Mr. MALONE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Agenda for the Genoa Conference has yet been settled; and if it will be published to the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The outline Agenda which will form the basis of the discussions at Genoa was included in the Cannes Resolutions which were recently presented in the form of a Command Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED WAR DEBTS.

Mr. FOOT: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether a note has been presented to France asking for payment of the interest on the French debt to this country; if so, whether a similar note has been presented to our other Allies in the late War; and whether he will lay the note upon the Table?

Mr. MALONE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the House any information regarding the Government's note to the Allies on the subject of the payment of interest on Inter-Allied War debts; whether any reply has been received from any of the Allies; and what is the nature of their replies?

Mr. YOUNG: A communication has been addressed to all the Allied Governments owing War debts to this country giving formal notice that in view of the obligation of this country to pay interest to the United States Government in October next His Majesty's Government must reserve the right as from that date to ask for payment in cash of interest on Allied debts to this country. No replies have yet been received. I see no need to lay the text of the communication, the substance of which I have given.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not quite usual to lay a Note of this importance on the Table of the House, and if there is any reason why it should not be laid?

Mr. YOUNG: The only reason for not laying the communication is that I have, I think, given the whole substance of it in my reply, but if any special importance is attached to the communication, I will certainly see that it is laid, if the Noble Lord will move for it in the ordinary way.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

ADMINISTRATION.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 48.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if, with a view to securing a practical and consistent policy of economy in the public service, the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a permanent Committee on administration which would have the power of supervising the administrative systems of all public Departments, of suggesting labour-saving methods, and of preventing overlapping, such Committee to have authority equal to that of the Auditor-General, but exercising its check before, and not after, expenditure, is incurred?

Mr. YOUNG: Effective machinery for all the purposes referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend already exists, and I do not consider that the creation of a. separate body of the kind indicated is either necessary or desirable.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the working of the Standing Committee on Administration which was set up in the United States when Mr. Taft was President; is he aware that this Standing Committee was able to effect some very great economies, because of its power to supervise the work of all Departments and to point out where there was overlapping of functions and where more economical methods could be adopted; and will he consider the advisability of setting up a Committee on the same lines in this country?

Mr. YOUNG: The financial and administrative system of the United States differs so widely from that of the United Kingdom that it is not possible to make a comparison between isolated elements in either system. I am in no sense suggesting any criticism of the American system when I say that the machinery in existence in this country is fully effective for the purposes referred to.

TEMPORARY OFFICIALS (PAY).

Mr. RAPER: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a letter has recently been addressed to Departments with regard to reduction of pay of temporary officials, other than graded
clerks, at present in receipt of inclusive salaries; and, if so, what are the precise terms of such letter?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer is in the negative. The remuneration of such officials is being reviewed individually by the Departments concerned, in consultation with the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any alterations may be anticipated in the methods of Income Tax collection, which will tend to reduce either the expenses of collection or the number of officials employed, having regard to the Economy Report and also to the favourable opinions aroused by the provisions, of the Revenue Bill of 1921?

Mr. YOUNG: The alterations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers cannot be carried out without legislative authority. Such authority was sought in the Revenue Bill, which, owing to lack of Parliamentary time and to opposition in this House, was not proceeded with last year.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my hon. Friend consent to receive a deputation to discuss this matter with him?

Mr. YOUNG: If my hon. and gallant Friend will be so kind as to confer with me I shall be very glad to have the benefit of his views.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a statement showing the cost of collecting the Income Tax for each year during the last 10 years?

Mr. YOUNG: The Income Tax is one of several duties collected by the Board of Inland Revenue, and it is not possible to apportion the total cost of collection between the various items. The cost of collection of Inland Revenue duties for each of the years from 1911–12 to 1919–20 is shown in Table 4 (page 8) of the 63rd Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Cmd. 1083). For the year 1920–21 the cost was approximately £7,927,000.

Sir W. DAVISON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
now in a position to assure the House that steps will be taken in the forthcoming Finance Bill to remove the anomalous differentiation which at present exists under the Income Tax Acts between the employE9 of a public company and the employé of a firm, whereby the former is assessed for his remuneration on the basis of the income of the current year while the income of the latter is assessed on the basis of the three preceding years; and whether, with a view to saving expense, and securing simplicity, he will consider as to assessing all individuals to Income Tax on the actual income of the preceding year, following the practice already introduced in the assessment to Super-tax whereby separate assessments for Income Tax and Super-tax would be obviated and a large reduction in stationery and costs of administration effected?

Mr. YOUNG: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply (a copy of which I am sending him) given to the right hon. Member for Aston (Sir Evelyn Cecil) on the 7th instant.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the duty of the Treasury to see that a like burden is imposed upon people in one particular class?

Mr. YOUNG: The duty of the Treasury, I imagine, in these matters is to administer the law.

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely it is the duty of the Treasury to see that the law is fair to a particular class, and that the Income Tax is not assessed on one basis for one section, and on another basis for another section?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR COMMITMENTS (FUNDING).

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any resolutions or recommendations of British chambers of commerce, and similar institutions, with reference to the placing of our war commitments, in the nature of pensions, etc., upon a funding basis; and, if so, what his reply has been?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to add to the answer he gave the hon. and gallant Member on the 28th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — REVENUE BILL.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to introduce a Revenue Bill this year?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not aware of any such intention.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand from that answer that the administrative recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax are not going to be carried out this year?

Mr. YOUNG: The intention, as to which my right hon. Friend has no knowledge, applies to that sphere of legislation also.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that Circular 1245 of the Board of Education was not a decision to limit the expenditure on the education of blind and deaf children to the exclusion of any such children from attendance at suitable schools, but was intended merely as a warning that it might become necessary to do so, and in view of the fact that already certain education committees have accepted the circular as a decision of the Board, and are actually keeping blind and deaf children from instruction, he will either withdraw the circular or inform local education authorities that their duties under the Act of 1893, and the Education Acts generally affecting these children, remain as heretofore, and that the Board, until Parliament enacts otherwise, will continue to bear their present proportion of the expense of the education of all blind or deaf children needing such education?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I do not think that there is any such general misapprehension of the position as the hon. and gallant Member suggests. The hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware that the Board's ability to pay grant in respect of the education of blind and deaf children depends upon the provision made by Parliament for the purpose. I have every hope that means may be found to prevent any diminution of the numbers of children in attendance at schools for the blind and deaf.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CHALTON HORNDEAN.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education the result of the further inquiry into the proposed closing of the elementary school at Chalton Horndean, Hants, which on 30th March he promised to make; whether he will arrange for a public inquiry to be held locally, under Section 31 of the Education Act, 1918, as to the proposed closing of the school; and whether he is aware that the managers are anxious that the public inquiry should be held?

Mr. FISHER: I have now received a copy of a resolution passed on the 6th April at a meeting of the managers of the school, consenting to its closure. I understand that the managers asked that a, public inquiry should be held, but as I have no authority to require the managers to continue to provide the school, I do not think that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS, SOMERSET.

Mr. WATERSON: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now ascertained if the Somerset County Education Committee has decided to discontinue the maintenance of voluntary evening continuation schools, many of which have been in existence for 30 years; whether, since this decision will mean that young persons desiring further education in hundreds of parishes in Somerset will be deprived of any facilities for such further education, he will say what steps he proposes to take to secure that, where a reasonable number of students in any parish desire continued education, proper facilities will be provided?

Mr. FISHER: I am informed that the Committee have not decided to discontinue the maintenance of evening continuation schools in the county. They have, however, decided to insert in their regulations a clause to the effect that during the session 1922–23 no evening continuation school shall be allowed to continue unless a minimum attendance of at least 12 students is maintained, and that in parishes where the population exceeds 1,500 this minimum shall be raised to 15.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (UNIVERSITY EDUCATION).

Sir J. D. REES: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, under the scheme for the education of ex-officers, fresh applicants for assistance are still being sent to the universities at the public expense; how many have been admitted on a public assistance basis up to date; when admissions will finally cease; when the last admissions were sanctioned; and whether a Supplementary Vote was taken for the extra two millions of expense now incurred in addition to the six millions for which sanction has previously been obtained?

Mr. FISHER: The latest date pre scribed for the lodging of applications under the ex-service students' scheme was the 30th June, 1920. Applications after that date have, however, been exceptionally entertained where the lodging of an application was prevented by retention in the forces in a remote theatre of the War, or by retention in hospital. Apart from these exceptional cases all fresh awards have ceased. The total number of students who have been admitted to the benefits of the scheme is 26,470. The last award was made on the 7th March, 1922. The sum of six millions was a provisional anticipation of the total cost of the scheme made when the scheme was first put forward. The excess of two millions falls over the total period of the operation of the scheme. The expenditure in each year has been within the amount contained in the Estimates for that year (Class IV, N. 1, 2 and 3), except in 1919–20, the first full year of the scheme, when a Supplementary Vote became necessary.

Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that anything so far removed from elementary education is consistent with elementary economy at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Mr. KENNEDY: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as a result of recent decisions taken by the Allied Governments, any revision has been made in the sum paid into the Exchequer as against the cost of the British Army of Occupation?

Mr. YOUNG: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. KILEY: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received the resolution passed at the meeting of the fancy goods section of the London Chamber of Commerce, to the effect that representations should be again made to him urging that the time has now arrived when the import duty on musical instruments, clocks, watches, and motor accessories should be removed, having regard to the fact that this was a Wartime measure; and what action does he propose to take?

Mr. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

Major M. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that after the War this particular tax would be removed?

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Was it not debated in the House, and understood, that a wider scope would be given for its retention in the interest of trade and industry in this country?

Mr. KILEY: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the action of His Majesty's Board of Customs in refusing to release some articles for the reason that they might be used for the purpose of attaching a clock, a barometer, or other such article thereto, on the ground that if a clock were attached thereto the article would then become part of a clock and as such liable to duty under the Import Restriction Act of 1915, which authorised His Majesty's Customs to obtain a duty of 33⅓ per cent, on clocks; and whether, since it is stretching the Act beyond reasonable limits to levy the duty upon any article to which a clock movement could be attached, he will reconsider this decision?

Mr. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case in question, I will cause inquiry to be made and communicate the result to him.

Mr. KILEY: Would it not be possible for the Department to issue instructions that when a duty is levied on an article
it should be levied on that article and not on furniture appertaining to it?

Major BARNES: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain industries, such as the motor car industry, the motor-accessories industry, and the musical instrument industry, etc., are enjoying the protection of a 33⅓ per cent, duty, which was imposed on the import of articles with which they are in competition, under necessity created by shortage of cargo space in the middle of the War; that his predecessors in office pledged their words to the House of Commons that the duties in question were not imposed for protective purposes and would be removed directly the conditions which required them ceased to exist; and whether steps will immediately be taken to remove the duties in question in order that the industries referred to may in principle be placed on the same footing as the other industries of the country, so that if they can substantiate a claim to a duty it will be open to them to make out their claim under similar conditions to those imposed upon other industries by the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Mr. YOUNG: The reasons for the imposition and subsequent continuance of the duties in question have been fully given from time to time in the House in connection with the various Budget statements, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member. As regards the latter part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May we hope that the tax will be increased to 50 per cent.?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER DUTY.

Captain MARTIN: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a great deal of the unrest amongst the working classes is due to falling wages and the exorbitant price of beer; and whether he will seriously consider in his Budget proposals the advisability of reducing the duty on the barrel of beer by 50 per cent.?

Mr. YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of representations in the sense mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, but he is unable to anticipate the Budget proposals on this matter.

Captain MARTIN: Am I to understand from the answer that the Government are really trying to bring about prohibition in an indirect way?

Mr. YOUNG: I do not think any word could have fallen from me that could give rise to such a suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL AND COKE (EXPORTS).

Mr. CAIRNS: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantities of coal and coke sent from this country into France, Italy, and Germany in 1913 and 1921, and the quantity of coal and coke sent from Germany in 1913 and 1921 into France?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. As the answer involves a statistical

Exports from the United Kingdom.


Destination.
Coal.
Coke.


1913.
1921 (a).
1913.
1921 (a).







Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


France
…
…
…
…
12,775,909
6,395,651
5,785
4,265


Italy
…
…
…
…
9,647,161
3,383,083
70,327
31,179


Germany
…
…
…
…
8,952,328
817,877
20,455
1,205




Exports from Germany.







Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


France
…
…
…
…
2,413,618 (b)
6,243,521 (c)
2,338,313
2,907,940 (c)

(a) In 1921 there was a general stoppage of three months' duration in the British coalfields, so that the export figures shown above correspond roughly to a working period of only nine months. Calculated on the basis of the figures for the last quarter of 1921, the annual export of coal and coke would be: 12,588,512 tons of coal and 1,228 tons of coke to France, 5,862,400 tons of coal and 60,916 tons of coke to Italy, and 1,489,280 tons of coal to Germany. No coke was exported to Germany during the last quarter of 1921.

(b) Not including coal exported to France from the Sarre.

(c) All this was reparation coal and coke.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES (CONVEYANCE BY RAIL).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he can issue regulations as to the prompt conveyance by rail of perishable vegetable produce and fruit; and whether he can take any action with reference to a proposal made by the

statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is the Minister aware that the quantity of coal supplied by Germany to France as indemnity coal is equal to twice the quantity produced by the county of Northumberland?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware of that. I think if the hon. Member will look at the answer as it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that it gives the information he requires.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to lay the pits idle, as they are getting only two and three days per fortnight?

Following is the statement:

London and South Western Railway Company not to run carriages fitted with shelves for conveyance of strawberries over their system, as this change will result in great damage to the fruit and materially lessen its value?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am advised that the Minister has no power to issue regulations as sug-
gested. As regards the latter part of the question, I have been informed by the railway company that, following upon experiments which took place last year, an improved type of basket has been standardised by the growers, and that the experiments showed that the provision of shelves in the vans was not necessary. I am always prepared to consider, and to lay before the railway companies, any well-founded representations from interests concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. W. THORNE: 75.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of contributions paid by the employers, the total amount paid by the workers, and the total amount paid by the State in accordance with the various Unemployment Insurance Acts since their commencement; what has been the total amount paid out by the Government for administration during the same period; and what has been the total amount deducted from the employers' and workmen's contributions on the 10 per cent, reduction for administration?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): As the reply is necessarily somewhat lengthy, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows;

The total amount of contributions paid under the Unemployment Insurance Acts (including the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act), between July, 1912, and the present date, is as follows:—

Employers
…
…
£26,300,000


Employed
…
…
£25,000,000


State
…
…
£16,200,000





£67,500,000

The total cost of administration for the period of nearly 10 years has been approximately £14,000,000. Of this sum about £7,200,000 represents the Appropriation-in-Aid of 10 per cent., which is based on the total income of the Fund (including interest) and not merely on the contributions of employers and employed.

I have not included in these figures, of course, any reference to the Out-of-Work Donation Scheme which ran from Armistice to 31st March, 1921, and involved a State charge of 62 millions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK.

Mr. HURD: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if it has been brought to his notice that the foreign milk now being imported in various forms is often produced under sanitary conditions which would not be tolerated on British farms; and whether he will safeguard the health of the British consumer, and especially the child population, by instituting a standard for imported milk, whether liquid, dry, or condensed?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): So far as I am aware, the conditions of production of foreign milk which is imported into this country are not worse than those which exist on many British farms. The amount of fresh milk which is imported is insignificant, and the processes to which sterilised, dried and condensed milks are submitted are necessarily such as to minimise the risk of danger to health. All consignments of imported milk or milk products are liable to be inspected at the port of entry and those which are found to be unfit for human consumption are condemned.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any record of recent analyses of these goods to see if they really do come up to the British standard?

Sir A. MOND: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. MALONE: 80.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that during the last week, since the reduction of the price of milk, there has been great scarcity of supply, and whether, in view of the importance of milk, especially as a diet for children, he can take any steps to prevent consumers from suffering as a result of what appears to be a quarrel between the farmers' union and the retailers' combines?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am aware that there has been some restriction in the supplies of milk in London. I am having
a Conference to-day with both producers and distributors and I will bear in mind the point mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. MALONE: Will the Report be published of the results of the Conference?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I told the House yesterday that I am issuing an agreed statement, and in it will be put the facts that are essential.

Mr. W. THORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever it may be, attends the Conference to-day, has he any power to compel farmers to deliver the milk instead of feeding it to the cows or putting it down the drains?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have no power, but I have hopes that an agreement may be arrived at with terms satisfactory to the parties concerned.

Lieut-Colonel ASHLEY: Would it be desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should have powers to compel people to sell goods below the cost of production?

Mr. W. THORNE: Rubbish!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bring in a Bill with that object?

Captain MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Norfolk farmers have been offered 5d. per gallon net for their milk?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be well aware of these facts shortly, as I am going almost immediately to the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

Mr. WATERSON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether legislation will be introduced at an early date to deal with trusts and combines, both in the interests of the business community and of the public, in accordance with the promise made on behalf of the Government to this House on 9th March, 1921?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for Maidstone on the 15th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY AND GREECE.

Sir J. D. REES: 85.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to induce the Greek Government to repay the sum of £30,000 owing to the Ottoman Railway (from Smyrna to Aidin) Company?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the subject in the first part of my reply of yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme.

Sir J. D. REES: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has information to the effect that the Greek Government has sequestrated and despatched to Greece 200,000 sheep and goats and 10,000 head of cattle from the vilayet of Smyrna; and, in the event of such being available, and seeing that such action does not accord with the spirit or letter of the mandate given for the administration of Smyrna vilayet, will the Foreign Office inquire into the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Greek Government have categorically denied these allegations of the Turkish Government, and have informed His Majesty's Government that severe measures have been taken to prevent the export of sheep and cattle from Asia Minor.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg the indulgence of the House for a very short personal explanation. On Wednesday last, during the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), I referred to his speech, and commented on the results which it seemed to me would necessarily follow. It would appear that, through inadvertence, I referred to these expressions of opinion as though they had been actually in fact the statements of the hon. Baronet. In particular, I find myself quoted in the OFFICIAL REPORT as saying that the hon. Member for Twickenham
desired to destroy his great old Conservative party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1922; col. 2385, Vol. 152.]
It must have been obvious to anyone who had heard the speech of the hon. Baronet that he had no such desire. It
was far from my wish to impute any such design to him, and, my attention having been drawn to the passages as reported, I have taken what I understand is the usual course to clear up as soon as possible this misrepresentation, of which I have unwittingly been guilty. I beg the indulgence of the House for this trespass upon its time, but at this moment, when controversy is reviving, it seemed urgent that this mistake of mine should be put right.

DURATION OF SPEECHES (PARLIAMENT).

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Wallace) has given notice that he proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with the duration of speeches in Parliament. In my opinion, a Motion of this kind is not in order, because it would have the effect of submitting the Procedure of this House to the control of the other House. I think this House, by its custom and tradition, will never allow that. I further base myself on the ruling of my predecessor on the 17th June, 1908, when two hon. Members proposed to bring in Bills to control the Procedure of this House, and on that occasion my predecessor said that he declined to allow the Crown or the House of Lords to have anything to do with the Regulations for the Procedure of this House.

Mr. WALLACE: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that in February, 1891, a similar Bill was introduced into this House and was only lost on a division by 24 votes? Under these circumstances, I ask whether that does not establish a precedent which is entitled to equal consideration with the decision which you have just announced which was given by your predecessor?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I am aware of that precedent. I have looked it up most carefully. I think the fate of that Bill is a lesson. Anyhow, I think the good precedent of 1908 wipes out the bad precedent of 1891.

Mr. HURD: Will you, Mr. Speaker, kindly give to the younger Members of this House some guidance as to what they will have to adopt to arrive at the result desired?

Mr. W. THORNE: Common sense.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members who desire to shorten speeches will have my sympathy and all the help I can give them. I think they might ballot for Notices of Motion, and in that way advance the cause they have at heart.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible, by a Resolution of the House, to arrive at a proper result on this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: A Resolution of the House would operate as a Sessional Order, and it could be converted into a Standing Order, if the House thought fit. There have been, on many occasions, on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, Motions for a Debate on this very subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: May I put two or three questions to the Leader of the House? First of all, will questions be answered to-morrow, seeing that the House meets at Eleven o'clock; secondly, what Votes does the right hon. Gentleman hope to take to-night; thirdly, what business do the Government intend to take when the House reassembles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Ministers will do their best to be prepared to answer questions that are put on the Paper tomorrow, but I am sure that the House will show consideration, because they know the difficulties of the situation when the House meets early.
To-day we propose to take Works Votes, because we are anxious to get those that will facilitate, where suitable, the building that is proceeding. We therefore will take the Houses of Parliament Buildings, Revenue Buildings, Public Buildings Great Britain, Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain, Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, and Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain—that is Votes 4, 8, 10, 9, 3, and 6, in the order named.
On the reassembling of the House on Wednesday, 26th April, we propose to take as the first Order, the Empire Settlement Bill, Second Reading; the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Report; Canals (Continuance of Charging Powers) Bill, Second Reading; Harbours,
Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, Second Reading; and the Air Ministry (Kenley Common Acquisition) Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday, 27th April, is Supply, an Allotted Day, and I understand that there is a desire for a discussion on the Board of Education Estimates.
Friday, 28th April: Private Members' Day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on any Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House proceeded to a Division. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy were appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Mr. Hogge was appointed, Teller for the Noes: but no Member being willing to act as Second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

NOTICES OF MOTION.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. W. Smith.]

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Grundy.]

MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Mothers' Pensions, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Kennedy.]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

On this day three weeks, to call attention to the question of Unemployment Benefit, and to move a Resolution.—[Major Kelley.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to Licensing in Scotland," presented by Mr. KIDD; supported by Sir Henry Craik, Sir Watson Cheyne, Captain Elliot, Mr. Ford, Major Glyn, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Gideon Murray, Major William Murray, Colonel Sir Alexander Sprot, and Mr. Sturrock; to be read a Second Time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL,

"to make provision for the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary and with respect to magistrates appointed under the Acts relating to that Force, and for the validation of things done or omitted in the execution or purported execution of those Acts; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. CHURCHILL; supported by Sir Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Hilton Young, and Sir Ernest Pollock; to be read a Second Time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

PRIVATE BILLS.

Padiham Urban District Council Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Birmingham Corporation Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Hodge to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Bill and the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment Bill); and Mr. James Henry Thomas to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Juries Bill [Lords] and the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

CHARTERED ASSOCIATIONS (PROTECTION OF NAMES AND UNIFORMS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,

Pawnbrokers Bill,

East India Loans (Railways and Irrigation) Bill,

Kenya Divorces (Validity) Bill,

Diseases of Animals Bill,

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

Unemployment Insurance Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920." [Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Trafford Park Company to make and maintain a railway in the parish and urban district of Stretford, in the County of Lancaster; to sanction and confirm the existing railways of the company: to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Trafford Park Bill [Lords.]

Trafford Park Bill [Lords]

Read the First Time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Foot, Mr. William Graham, Sir Alfred Mond, Sir Herbert Nield, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Malcolm Smith, Mr. Sutton, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Railway Fires Act (1905) Amendment
Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir Arthur Boscawen, Mr. Foot, Major Glyn, Captain Loseby, Major Palmer, Mr. Robert Richardson, Sir Thomas Robinson, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Townley.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Juries Bill [Lords]): Sir Frederick Banbury, Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Mr. George Edwards, Mr. Robinson Graham, Mr. Hailwood, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, Mr. Rawlinson. Mr. Shortt, and Mr. Sturrock.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Audit (Local Authorities, etc.) Bill): Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Barnes, Mr. Hailwood, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Neil Maclean, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, Mr. Rawlinson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS I.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[Note: £40,000 has been voted on account.]

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to two subjects in connection with this Vote. The first is the accommodation, of the House in which we are now sitting, and the second is the means which are now used to provide for the "inner man" of the House of Commons. I have now been a Member of this House for some 17 years. It seems to me a most extraordinary anomaly that the Mother of Parliaments should have sitting accommodation for less than one half of the Members of that body. It is contrary to the dignity of this House that we should ever consent to scramble, in the undignified way in which hon. Members have to for seats in this House when an important Debate is about to take place. I have in the past seen paragraphs in the papers to the effect that a certain hon. Member arrived first in the morning and waited in a queue outside the House until the doors were opened, and then, by fleetness of foot, succeeded in getting in first and securing, subject to attendance at prayers, the best seat in the House for the great Debate to take place that day. I put it seriously to Members of Parliament, that that is not a right and proper state of affairs, especially when we consider that the duties of Members of Parliament are daily becoming more onerous and their attendances more exacting than they were even when I first knew the House. Although it may be impossible to do anything at once to remedy this great defect, I do think it is not inappropriate on a Vote for the Houses
of Parliament that someone should draw the attention of the Committee to this very disagreeable state of things.
There is another point to which I, speaking candidly, object. We have prayers before the commencement of our proceedings. I hope and trust that those prayers will always form part of our proceedings. It is, however, a well-known fact that attendance at prayers would not be so constant or so numerous if it were not that it gave an hon. Member the right to a particular seat during the sitting of the House. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to see the number of occupants of the Front Benches who attend at prayers, he will realise that, as they are secure of their seats, it is not necessary for them to attend and they do not attend prayers. One would like to know that attendance at prayers was due to the desire of hon. Members to take part in the service and not to the wish to secure a seat during the forthcoming sitting. But let me get back to the main question. I put it to any hon. Member, and especially to those who have been members of county or borough councils, or of great city corporations, would they not consider it ludicrous if in their local bodies they had only sitting accommodation for less than one-half of their members? Would they not at once declare that the arrangement was a back number and that it ought to be brought up to date—the sooner the better? A Member who has to perform his Parliamentary duties should not have to worry about a matter of this kind. He should not have to worry, if he wishes to take part in the Debate, about getting a seat in the quarter of the House from which he is accustomed to address it. His inability to get such a seat, of course, makes it more difficult for him to catch the eye of whoever happens to be in the Chair. It surely ought not to be beyond the skill of the architect in charge of this building to at any rate make some increase in the accommodation for Members. I believe I am right in saying that, including the most out-of-the-way corners, there is sitting accommodation for not more than 320 Members, whereas there are now over 700 Members of this House. I am reminded by an hon. Member that when the Irish Free State is definitely established 60 or 70 of the Members will be taken away from this House. That may be true, but with a membership of
630 or 640 it cannot be seriously maintained that 320 seats is adequate accommodation.
4.0 p.m.
I always endeavour not to speak at too great length in this House, but I wish to say a few words upon another subject, and it is with reference to the machinery now existent in this House to provide for our creature comforts. I yield to no one in my admiration of the Chairman of our Kitchen Committee, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir J. Agg-Gardner). He is one of the oldest and most popular Members of this House, and at the same time one of the most courteous. He is ably assisted by a Committee of Members, from whom also we get nothing but courtesy. But dealing with this question from a purely practical business point of view, I would ask if we are wise to have a Committee of Members of this House, who may or may not have experience in running catering businesses? Are we wise in maintaining that system? Would it not be far better to abolish that Committee and put out the contracts for our food and drink to a real business firm? Those of us who have had experience of night sittings—latterly they have been exceptional in this House, but they will come again—must know of the enormous and almost intolerable strain which they inflict on the Kitchen Committee. It is seldom known when they are going to take place, and when they do occur it is found that the supply of refreshments often runs short, and hon. Members, in their patriotic efforts to prevent the Government rushing a Bill through the House, frequently have no means whereby they can maintain their strength and continue the Debate well into the small hours of the morning, and even into the next day. On the other hand, it often happens that a night sitting has been anticipated and provided for by the Kitchen Committee, but the Debate suddenly ends, a compromise is arrived at, hon. Members go home at 10 or 11 o'clock, the whole of the arrangements become unnecessary, and food is wasted because it cannot be used up afterwards in this House. If one had a responsible firm in charge and a good agreement was drawn up, supposing an all-night sitting occurred unexpectedly, that firm would be able to draw upon its numerous establishments in London and supply our needs at a
moment's notice. In the same way, if an all-night sitting was anticipated and did not materialise, the food would not be wasted, because it could be easily consumed next day in the shops belonging to the firm. Personally, I think we should have a better and more efficient service.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a very interesting topic, but I do not see how it comes in this Vote. I cannot see any money in this Vote dealing with the Kitchen Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Under Item D, we have fuel, light, water and household articles, and there is also furniture under Item F. All those articles are supplied to the Kitchen Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be entitled to raise the point as to whether these articles should be supplied for the purposes of the Kitchen Committee, but I do not think that he is entitled on this Vote to discuss the general policy of catering by the Kitchen Committee. I do not wish to stop him; I only want the discussion to be in order. Perhaps there is another Vote, but I do not see anything in this Vote. I can hardly rule that the general policy of catering by the Kitchen Committee comes under electricity supply.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (Lord of the Treasury): There are services in this Vote which are rendered to the Kitchen Committee, but, personally, I think this is a question which ought to be discussed outside this Debate, and, if hon. Members who are interested in this subject would get into touch with the Kitchen Committee, something practicable might be done.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I would submit that it would be rather outside the scope of this Vote to go into the detail operations of the Kitchen Committee, as you have already indicated, but that some perfectly general questions would be in order. This is the first time that this Vote has been submitted, and it has been the practice of the Chair on the first occasion on which Votes have been submitted to allow as wide a discussion as can possibly be allowed. This is the only Vote I know of which gives hon. Members an opportunity of discus-
sing a question which certainly is not only of general, but also of particular interest.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Personally, I have just finished, but we have in this Vote Item B, Maintenance and Repairs; Item D, Fuel, Light, Water, and Household Articles, and Item F, Furniture. Would it not be in order to raise the question whether we should go on supplying these things free gratis to a Committee of this House, or whether it would not be better to supply them to some firm with whom we have a contract?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought it right to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is a little difficult to say that the Kitchen Committee comes under this Vote, but, as money is provided for services up to a certain extent, I think I should be interpreting the wish of the Committee and not departing from the usual practice if I allowed a reasonable latitude. I do not want it, however, to develop into a general discussion as to the policy of the Kitchen Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I will not detain the Committee any longer. Having raised these two points, which are subjects of considerable domestic importance from the House of Commons point of view, I will only ask hon. Members, before they give their opinion, to consider whether in the future some change should not be made whereby greater sitting accommodation could be provided, and, secondly, whether, without in any way reflecting upon the ability and courtesy of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, they should not be instructed or, at any rate, consulted with a view of putting the catering out to contract, though the Committee still might remain in existence and carry on its activities, but not by direct labour.

Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
I so fully sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member in the subject which he has brought before us, that I feel it necessary to apologise to him for not pursuing the topic which he has raised, but, by agreement with Mr. Speaker and the Government, I move the reduction of this Vote in order to settle the question whether time recorders should be placed on each side of the House above the Gangway. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]
Obviously, there are two opinions about the matter, but I have taken every reasonable precaution to make certain that the decorations of the House will not be in any way marred, and I think I have satisfied the Office of Works on that point. All that will be seen will be the two time recorders which will correspond with the existing clocks, and they will record speeches up to sixty minutes. I do not wish to repeat the remarks which I made on the previous occasion, but my object is to assist those Members who are condemned, like Tantalus, to watch and not to participate in the banquet, and also those hon. Members who are reduced to trusting to the dinner hour and to speaking without an audience. I never come into this House and see hon. Members waiting trusting to the dinner hour without thinking of Gray's lines:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
I do hope to shorten speeches a little, two minutes here and three minutes there, by these clock recorders appealing to the consciences of hon. Members. This will result in about two or three Members at each Sitting of the House getting in and participating in the Debates. It will enable a number of Members to get the atmosphere of this House much better. Members soon acquire the atmosphere of the platform, but it is very difficult to acquire the atmosphere of this House. I think they can take courage from the fact that the distinguished colleague of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), to whom we all listen with the greatest attention and delight, when he first came into this House, was, I hear, a very poor speaker indeed. I want more Members to become able speakers in this House, and I venture to say that it is possible for hon. Members who speak at length to condense their remarks a good deal. I would call attention to what Jefferson said in Congress after the war of the American Independence. He said:
I served with General Washington in the legislation of Virginia before the Revolution, and during it, with Dr. Franklin in Congress, I never heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time nor to any but the main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of themselves.
I venture to say that is what we might aim at. We might, at any rate, reduce some of these long speeches which prevent other hon. Members getting into the Debates, and, if you have these time recorders on each side of the House, hon. Members who do not now know how long they are taking will, then know, and it will result in their shortening their speeches. Other hon. Members coming into the House will see recorded on the time recorder exactly how long the Member speaking has taken, and they will therefore be able to bring an intelligent public opinion to bear on Members and to induce them to shorten their speeches. While I would not go so far as to say that silence is the better part of Debate, I would go so far as to say that by making our speeches beautifully less we will make the most of them.

Mr. WALLACE: I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friend in his Amendment for the reduction of this Vote. I feel that, properly understood, his purpose will be supported from every quarter of the Committee.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, only by two or three new Members who know nothing about it.

Mr. WALLACE: But who would know a little more about it if they were permitted by the right hon. Baronet, who takes up so much of the time of the House, to take more frequent part in the Debates. I am always willing to learn from the right hon. Baronet, than whom there is no greater exponent of the procedure of this House. What is our object in the installation of these time recorders? We are assured by my hon. and gallant Friend that it will not interfere with the symmetry or aesthetic effect of this Chamber, and we may therefore rest satisfied on that point. I have not very much hope that the time recorders, if installed, will really achieve the object which we have in view, but, if they fail, then the way will be clearer for some more drastic measures to overcome the abuse of the privileges of this House in which so many hon. and right hon. Members indulge. I was very much surprised, after becoming a Member, to find how long various Members took to unburden their political souls. It may have been some lack of discernment on
my part, some mental obliquity, or some lack of understanding, but I have always thought that the speeches, which occupy, as a rule, over half an hour, might, with the exception of Ministers introducing Kills, be compressed into twenty minutes. Such compression would not only help Debate in the House, but possibly assist the intellectual development of the speakers themselves. I have had this matter in mind for a considerable time, and to-day I intended to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, but, having been ruled out of order, I content myself with a word or two on the general subject.
What happens in the average full-dress Debate in the House? Any intelligent observer can tell the order of Debate, and the approximate length of time that each speaker will take; and he can also predict with absolute certainty, if he is a private Member, that he himself will not be permitted to take part. We attribute no fault to the Chair, but we certainly have a legitimate ground of complaint against these long speeches, which in many case3 are superlative only in their mediocrity and inordinate length. I have known many private Members who had something to say which they considered relevant in an important Debate, and they have sat in their places and attempted to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker time and again throughout the whole course of a seven or eight hours' Debate, at last giving up the struggle, dispirited, discouraged and disillusioned. If any remedy can be found for that state of affairs, it should be welcomed by everyone. I would venture to prophesy that, if we had a free Division on the question of an alteration in the Standing Orders whereby the speeches of private Members would be limited, say, to half an hour, we should take 80 per cent, of the Members into the Lobby in favour of that proposal. I do not suppose that the time recorder is necessary for a considerable number of Ministers, and there are certain other distinguished Members for whom it is not necessary. If I might take the liberty of saying so, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who leads the Independent Liberals in the House, is one of the greatest masters of brief and concise speech. He never uses an extra word, and there is never a redundant sentence. I can only wish that some of his followers
in the House would follow the high example that he sets them, for we should then be saved from the weariness of many lucubrations which, I think, do not particularly assist us in Debate on some occasions. I earnestly urge the Committee to take this matter seriously, in the interests of the House itself, in the interests of Debate, and in the interests of the great body of hon. Members.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down desires, apparently, that two recorders should be put up in certain positions in the Chamber, in order that, during set Debates, private Members may have an opportunity of speaking, which he, says they have not at present. I think it is extremely doubtful whether the setting up of a recorder would shorten speeches. There are a certain number of hon. Members who feel that they must show their constituencies that they have made long and important speeches, and the fact that a recorder is used might tempt them to go on for a much longer period than if it were not there. There is a recorder in the Chamber at present. It now shows that it is 19 minutes past four, by the sham time which is at present in force, and it is perfectly open to me, when I sit down, to know for how long I have addressed the Committee without the additional expense of putting up a recorder here and another one there, which, apparently, will have to be worked by electricity, and will cost more money, which we do not want to spend at the present moment.
I should like, if I may, to point out to the hon. Member the fallacy of his argument. However many recorders might be put up, there will always be, on the occasion of set Debates, a certain number of Members who cannot get in, as long as the duration of set Debates is limited as it has been during the past few years. When I first came into the House of Commons, the Debate on an important Second Reading, or an important Third Reading, went on for three or four days. There was no question of its being closured at the end of one day. But, what with the Guillotine, and the Kangaroo, and the Closure, and now with the further limitation of the rights of private Members that is suggested, it is impossible to continue a Debate beyond a cer-
tain limited time, and for that reason private Members do not get in on these particular set occasions. I venture to say, however, that in nine cases out of 10 the fact that they have not got in does not really make any difference at all, because both sides have made up their minds as to how they are going to vote, and the mere fact that someone has spoken, especially if he is a more or less new Member, does not alter matters at at all. What is really wanted, if I may venture humbly, as an old Member, to say so to new Members, is that new Members should come down and sit in this Chamber regularly all through the Debates. There will be plenty of opportunities then for them to get up and make their speeches. What they want to do, however, is to come down, not during the dinner hour, but after the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition has spoken, when there is a crowded House to hear them. Considering that there are not more than three hours, at the very outside, during which such conditions prevail, how many private Members are likely to get in? It is an impossibility. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who makes this proposal is himself not conspicuous for constant attendance in the Chamber. He is more or less conspicuous for his absence. I do not know whether he is in the precincts, but certainly he is not very often in this Chamber.

Commander BELLAIRS: I am always here.

Sir F. BANBURY: Not in the Chamber itself?

Commander BELLAIRS: Round about.

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, round about, and that is the point. Hon. Members are round about, but they ought to be here listening to the arguments, instead of worrying about whether they themselves can speak, which, I am sorry to say, a good many of them think is the appropriate thing to do—to come in, speak, and go out.

Commander BELLAIRS: If my right hon. Friend will excuse me, what drives me out of the Chamber are long and tedious speeches.

Sir F. BANBURY: A clock will not alter that. The speeches will be just as tedious, and I very much doubt whether
they will be shortened. What hon. Members ought to do is to stay here and listen to the arguments, and not come in, make their speeches, and then run away. The idea of putting up clocks or recorders is absolutely repugnant to the sentiments of the House, and is absolutely at variance with everything that has occurred in the House for many generations, while, if it has any effect at all, it will, I believe, have the effect, not of shortening but of lengthening speeches, and of encouraging Members to come in here merely to speak and not to listen to the Debate. What Members ought to do is to listen to the Debate, and form their own opinions from the Debate, and not to go outside and then come in and ask the Whips, "Which way are we?" and go like a flock of sheep into the Lobby. That is a practice which has grown tremendously during the last few years. Therefore, I earnestly trust that the Government will resist this proposal, which I believe has really no foundation except in the fertile brain of my hon. and gallant Friend, who admits that he is bored with the House.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I desire to express my warm approval of the proposal that has been before the Committee. I think the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the cheers of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, are a good deal to be discounted by reason of the fact that, as each of them has the honour of being a Member of the Privy Council, they can get in practically in any Debate, because, I think, it is the custom of the House of Commons that, where possible, a Member of the Privy Council should be called upon when he rises to speak. Certainly the right hon. Baronet gets a fair share in the proceedings, and, as I am generally in sympathy with his views, I am not disposed to cavil at that fact. I am in a little difficulty in this matter, because, although I am a warm supporter of anything that will reduce the tedium of these long and very often intolerable speeches, I am told by the Chair that, if this Amendment, for which I intend to vote, be carried, it will preclude the raising of any other points on this Vote; and there is one other point to which I desire to draw the attention of the Committee, and which I con-
sider to be as vital as that which has been raised first in the Debate this afternoon. It is also a matter which will, I think, furnish a very good reason why a considerable number of Members do not come down and sit throughout the Debates. It is the question of the ventilation of this Chamber.
Hon. Members are, no doubt, aware that, not only in the central gangway is there a continuous flow of air, which is continually being pumped up, but that all along each of these five benches on which we sit there is also a continuous aerial conduit carrying a draught round our feet and ankles. I can only suppose that the persons who were originally responsible for this system had some interest in the spat industry, because I notice that a very large number of hon. Members wear, as I myself do, spats, as some protection to the ankles and lower limbs against this hurricane which is continually blowing round our feet and legs. I suppose that, if there are two things which it is least desirable that a legislator or, indeed, any public man, should possess, they are cold feet and a hot head; and yet these two things are exactly what the system of ventilation which obtains in this Chamber causes. Yesterday afternoon, as I intended to raise this question, I went into the Library and asked the Librarian if he could show me the last report on the ventilation of this Chamber, and he kindly produced a large foolscap tome of 267 closely-printed pages, which I skimmed through. I do not recommend hon. Members to read it unless they are feeling very strong, or immediately after luncheon or dinner, for there are not only some startling passages in it, but some still more startling diagrams. There are diagrams of streptococci, and pneumococci, and cocci of all kinds, in every stage of development, all of which have been bred out of this Chamber. A few pages further on I was a little reassured, for I came to an account of bowls of broth, and I thought there was possibly some place in the precincts where Members who felt jaded or chilled by reason of the draughts from which we suffer could retire for a brief moment and get a bowl of broth. I was, however, disappointed, for I found that the bowls of broth referred to were associated with plates of gelatine, and were used for the culture and propagation of these dreadful
creatures of which pictures had just before been given.
There is just one other point in the Report that is of interest, though I failed, in the brief time at my disposal, to see its relevancy to ventilation. It is stated towards the middle of the Report that immediately under the feet of the Government, but not elsewhere in the Chamber, are fixed sheets of copper gauze. It is by no means clear what ventilating effect these sheets of copper gauze have. I can only suppose that they may be for the purpose of testing the acidity of speeches made by Members of the Government, and that the Prime Minister may have an opportunity of consulting the engineer from, time to time when one or other of his colleagues has made a more than usually vitriolic speech to the House, as I presume that the copper gauze would then become of a greener colour than formerly. Be that as it may, at the end of this volume the conclusion appears to have been reached that, notwithstanding the ease with which these cocci of various kinds can be bred, and were bred, in this Chamber, they were not substantially worse than were to be found elsewhere, and that, notwithstanding the fact that the dust and dirt brought by Members' feet into the Chamber are blown by the means which I have indicated into the nostrils and thence into the lungs of Members, the air in the House of Commons was not substantially worse than in other places. Indeed, it is stated that a very considerable number of these cocci were, owing to the fact that they were driven through sheets of antiseptic cotton wool which stifled them, in a dead or semi-dying condition. That seems to me to give the key to the whole matter. The fact is that the air in the House of Commons is dead. It is full of dead microbes. It is without ozone, without life. That is why it is so enervating. It is just like soda water which has been poured from glass to glass, and then passed through a piece of muslin and then offered as a beverage. We know how flat it becomes. A very remarkable pronouncement on this subject was reported in the "Times" of the 18th August, 1919. It occurred in a review of Dr. Leonard Hill's report to the Medical Research Committee on the science of ventilation. The medical correspondent
of the "Times" introduces the review of Dr. Hill's Report with this paragraph:
We are moving as thinkers away from the view of ventilation which regards it wholly as a matter of 'air in the lungs'; we are coming to the view that it is really a matter of air on the skin, of stimulation, of drying, of cooling.
Then follows Dr. Hill's report in which ho says that he has had an opportunity of testing the air in the House of Commons—
In the chamber of the House of Commons the ventilating current is driven up through the floor in such a way as to cool the Members' feet while their heads are exposed to more stagnant air. Cold feet and stuffy heads result—just the wrong conditions for legislators. Certain Members are susceptible and complain greatly of the ventilation. Others do not. Noses vary. The thermometer, it is true, shows a uniform temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit, but the Kata thermometer shows that Members' feet are cooled at a rate which is 40 per cent, or more greater than the cooling of their heads.
That bears out my remark that this is an entirely wrong system of ventilation. What is wanted is fresh air. We have here on each side of the House these hermetically-sealed windows. It costs thousands of pounds a year to work the electric pumps which are sucking in and driving up this wretched wet blanket of an atmosphere in which we sit, and many sleep, whereas the whole thing could be done by opening the hermetically-sealed windows on each side. An hon. Member says, "What about the smuts coming in?" Do we never open windows in our own houses? It is better to have a few smuts on one's nose than to have streptococci in our lungs. If what I say is true of the House of Commons, where Members sit, it is 10 times or 100 times more so of the public galleries. The Members' Gallery and the Ladies' Gallery, where we are honoured from time to time by the presence of our constituents who come to hear these Debates. The air in these galleries is not simply bad, it is poisonous, in the Ladies' Gallery especially. In fact, I heard the Ladies' Gallery described the other day as an elevated black hole of Calcutta. There, again, is a painted window, which is hermetically sealed. The custodian is forbidden to open it, and no air can get in. The other day I took up a lady, and left her there for a few minutes while I discharged some public duties in the House. When I returned a few minutes later, she said, "Thank
goodness you have come back. I should have fainted if I had stayed in this place much longer." As long as we invite ladies to come to hear our Debates, we ought, at any rate, to find for them some place where they will not be poisoned while they are listening to us. Apart from that, there would be a large saving effected by opening the windows and shutting off the engines. If the hon. Gentleman is 'Still unconvinced, I would ask him to get a report from the Geddes Committee, and ask them to draw up their report sitting in the Ladies' Gallery.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: We have had three questions raised to-day on this Vote. We have had the size of the Chamber, the badness of the air and the question of time recorders. The first two are both ruled out by the cost which they would undoubtedly involve. I have been here for the last 15 years, and I have never seen any real inconvenience arising from the fact that the Chamber does not accommodate all the Members who are entitled to sit here. There is plenty of room for 450 Members in the galleries and on the Floor of the House, and, in view of the reduced numbers of which the House consists since the setting up of the Irish Free State, it is almost inconceivable that you would ever get at any one time more than three-quarters of the Members present. Some generations of Members have sat in this Chamber, and it would be a thousand pities if we did away with all the associations which now cling to it. In reference to the proposal to change the system of ventilation I think that the ventilation here at present is excellent. I think that the majority of Members who sit in this House find it excellent. Of course, if Members sit in the Smoke-room, where sometimes there are a big crowd and a thick atmosphere, they may get a headache, but here we have air continually changing, and I find the atmosphere here about the most bracing in London. My hon. Friend, perhaps, does not sit in the House as much as I do. I only mention these two points because I feel that in these days it would give a bad impression to the public if we seemed to be pressing for expenditure on trifles of this kind. Now I come to the Amendment that the Vote should be reduced, to compel the Government to introduce time recorders. I believe that the House is not going to make itself
absurd by accepting the proposal. The speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) was quite honest in his attitude. He says, "I am supporting this Amendment not because I believe that we shall ever get a remedy for long speeches but because I introduced a private Bill——"

Mr. WALLACE: No.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Member introduced a private Bill which was out of order and therefore——

Mr. WALLACE: What I said was that I would cordially support this proposal, not that I hoped very much from it, but that it might secure a better method and give us a better chance than we have had in the past. With regard to the Bill which I desired to introduce, I could not go fully into what was in my mind in reference to that.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not wish to criticise the hon. Member's attitude, which no doubt is reasonable from his point of view. I am only afraid that other hon. Members may support this Motion perhaps, not having heard all the Debate, in a confusion of mind as to what it would bring about, because I submit it will not achieve the object which has been referred to in the speeches. The speeches in this House may or may not be too long, but I am afraid that we shall have to look for a more effectual means than that which has been suggested. I do not want to see anything of the kind introduced. The Government already have ample powers of curtailment of debates. We live in such exceptional times that a large number of hon. Members, perhaps, do not realise what powers are possessed by the Government for the prevention of discussion. The old Guillotine and the new Kangaroo mean that private Members are prevented, if the Government so wish, from bringing forward arguments which should be brought forward in the public interest, and this would give them a vastly more dangerous weapon. Once you admit that speeches are to be limited they may in the first place be limited to a half-hour, but from that it is a small step to go further and limit them to 20 minutes, 10 minutes, or even five minutes, if you have a despotic Government prepared to take that course. I do not think that the time record would really prevent people
making speeches, because hon. Members can always find out at the door how long anyone has been speaking.
The only argument is that a lot of Members are prevented from speaking because they cannot be bothered sitting in the House and waiting until they are called. I do not think that that is altogether an evil, because important and sound arguments will not really be kept back by the difficulty which we have to face in getting an opportunity of speaking in this House. If a man is going to make remarks which are not worth making he very often leaves the House, but in order to be called he has to sit in the House for an hour or two before he gets his chance. If hon. Members who wish to make speeches can bear the ordeal of weary benches, with people yawning, no clock dial will prevent them. In addition to that, it would make us seem rather ridiculous in the eyes of the public if we admit that we are incapable of the simple sum in mental arithmetic of calculating how long we should talk. Time-recorders may be necessary if and when the House decides to limit speeches. I hope that will never be. That is how they were first spoken of, and that is what has brought the subject forward, but it would be putting the cart before the horse, and would be absolute waste of money to put up these time-recorders unless your really made them effective.

Mr. LORDEN: I am in great sympathy with this Amendment. I am a new Member, and perhaps I have not the feelings of hon. Members who have been here from time immemorial. I cannot, therefore, have sympathy with them. I have been in the habit of sitting in various assemblies where there has been a time limit on speeches.
I do not think any Member should come here if he is not to be heard on some occasions. I feel strongly that not only do we want time-recorders, but limitation of the long speeches. I would limit the Government in the length of speeches. They are the worst sinners of all. They make speeches of an hour, an hour-and-a-half and two hours which they could compress, to the advantage of the country and of themselves, into a much shorter space of time. The matter of catering has also been mentioned. I have come to the conclusion that if you
went into Lockhart's you would be better catered for. It is very bad indeed, and anything that could be done to alter it would be an advantage. Regarding the accommodation of the House, it is wrong that hon. Members cannot find seats. This House has a great many traditions, and many people, no doubt, would regret to see any alterations, but really, the space should be made sufficient for the number of hon. Members who come here, and each should have his own seat. The question of ventilation has also been brought up. It would be of immense advantage if we could have a current of air through the House when it is not sitting. Whenever I come into this House I always get cold feet and a warm head, and this is due to nothing but the ventilation. If you sit in the Galleries under the Clock, you will find you cannot remain there for half-an-hour without getting a very severe headache. That shows that the ventilation is Very deficient and very bad.
I should like to ask a question or two with regard to the repairing of the roof of Westminster Hall. £23,500 is required to complete it. We have a right to know what the total cost of that has been, whether it is likely to be completed this year, and the cause of that pungent odour which many of us have suffered when we come in down below. [An HON. MEMBER: "I like it!"] It always gives me a bad throat. Regarding the £11,000 dedicated to the stonework, it seems to me a totally inadequate sum to put the stonework in any condition whatsoever. The stonework is in an extremely bad state. The stone does not seem to be the right sort. It is a serious state of affairs when you get this glorious work crumbling off. We should have a report on the condition of this magnificent building, outside and in, and what it would cost to build today. When we turn round and compare this building with the structure over the road—but you cannot compare them. There is no comparison. This magnificent building is a memorial of a very wonderful character. I do not want to see the building outside falling into decay. I feel that we are entitled to know what is being done, and what is going to be done. We see cradles up and are never told what is going to be done. I see that the £5,000 last year is £11,000 this year, but I fear, before you get the building into any kind of condition outside, you
will have to spend a very large amount of money. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of this, and some idea about Westminster Hall? On the Houses of Parliament I have no further comments to make, but I hope something will be clone in the way of time recorders and limitation of speeches.

Sir J. D. REES: The Palace of Westminster is a precious national possession, and it is desirable that we should keep it in good condition. It is visited every day by parties, and I understand that in schools the impression that is made upon the visitors is given as a subject for an essay. Quite recently a pupil said that he saw the Speaker come in, attended by his Chaplain, who, having glanced round on the Members present, offered up a prayer for the safety of the nation. I think that hon. Members who have condemned so severely the ventilation of this House are Members who have not suffered very much in their physique by their experience. They should have put forward some frailer specimens of Parliamentary life before they undertook to condemn so bitterly the ventilation. I agree with them. I think the air lacks bite. It is filtered and warmed till it is useless, but that is not the opinion, I think, of the greater number of Members of the House, many of whom, unlike myself, are approaching the threshold of middle age, and are not, therefore, able to support that stronger, fresher air which I should welcome. It does not become us here to say what suits our individual constitutions. It is a fact that the ventilation of the House, however little individual Members may like it, seems to suit the majority, and I propose to leave it at that.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has added one more to many efforts for abbreviating speeches, but they are all useless. I have drawn top place in the Ballot, and proposed 20 minutes' limits myself, and in the spacious days, if you drew a place in the Ballot, you could compose an essay and read it between the hours of eight and nine, while other hon. Members dined. In those days there was no harm in it, but there is no time for that in these days. The feeling of the House, I think, is quite a sufficient check on speeches of too great a length. When hon. Members find that the House
is not listening to them, most of them have the elementary sense to sit down and not go on any longer. I do not think, therefore, that we should be led astray by my hon. and gallant Friend. There is another consideration—an exceedingly important one—if you introduce a time-limit, everybody will speak up to it. Inasmuch as loquacity is far less lasting in its injurious effects than legislation, it is by no means certain that the restriction of discussion in this House is desirable in the public interests.
I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn about the seating. I think it would be a misfortune if we sat in a larger Chamber than this. Already it is exceedingly difficult to follow what is going on in the House. Probably to-day it may have been mentioned that there was a Ballot for Notices of Motion. It was not on the Paper, and I am sure it was not heard. It is easy for those things to happen. Unless you have a different House, circular in shape, and with the benches arranged differently, it would be hopeless to provide for more Members than are now provided for. It is most difficult in a Chamber of this size for hon. Members to follow what is going on and participate in the business before them.
There is another point in this Vote. There is the Item, "Horticultural works, including the pay and emoluments of a park-keeper." A park-keeper, therefore, is a horticultural work. What is one park-keeper, and why is he attached to the House of Commons? If he were a park-keeper attached to St. James' Park I should endeavour to persuade the Committee that he should leave that park open, so that we may go across it when we go to our homes. But I believe that would be strictly out of Order. What is the use of one park-keeper? How and why is he a horticultural work, and what is the explanation of his solitary presence in this Vote? Lastly on another subject raised. The Chairmen of the Kitchen Committee have been ornaments of this House, and I hope we will continue to enjoy their company.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. TAYLOR: If the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) had not introduced the question of heating and ventilation, I had intended to do it.
Ever since I came to the House I have been very much interested in the heating and ventilation of the Chamber. Twenty years ago we wanted the best system of heating and ventilation for the town hall in my town. We visited almost every system and finally fixed on the present one, and in the year 1904 the late Mr. Alexander Wylie, who was then Member for Dumbartonshire, in a Debate something like we have had this afternoon, told the House of Commons that if they wanted to see a perfect system they should go to Clydebank Town Hall. When I came to the House I wanted to see what the system of heating and ventilation was, and I have been where I do not suppose one out of a hundred Members have been: I have been downstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, perhaps not, but I believe in being practical, and I wanted to see for myself how the Chamber was heated and ventilated.
The air is drawn in by fans from the terrace, and it passes through a water scheme and it is then heated to the requisite degree of heat. It is true that the air passes through cotton wool, but that is only when there is a fog. Afterwards it comes straight up from the chamber below. When all this purification has gone on, and the air is supposed to be clear of all smuts and infection, it comes up through the matting over which thousands of people have travelled in the forenoon. Reference has been made to the school children who come into the Chamber, examine it, and write essays on their experiences, but all these children leave something behind them from their boots. That lies on the matting and when the fans are put into operation all that dirt is driven up into the lungs of the Members. It is a waste of money to have all the elaborate washing of the air and all the elaborate heating of the air, passing through cotton wool and the like, and then to have it spoiled when it comes into the Chamber.
I understood when I went over the system with the late Member for Wolverhampton that there were some experiments being carried on at Kew to see if this system could not be made better. I do not know what the result of the experiments is, but I hope it will be something that will alter the system
altogether. It is wrong to bring the air up from the bottom. In the town hall I referred to, the air comes in not from the bottom but from the top. Some hon. Members would be all the better for that change because in that way they might get their heads cooled. That would take away all danger of infection caused by the dust that has lain on the Floor of the House. Upstairs there is plenty of room for an overhead system. You could bring the air in and wash it in the same way as you do at present. I hope that those who are investigating this matter will pay some attention to that suggestion.
Not only is the air infected by all the dust, but anyone who has been in the Chamber for a very short time will recognize that the air is far too dry. I wonder at so many doctors and chemists being in the House and not finding that out. There is a remedy if it is applied. We also found that the system we had at Clydebank showed the same defect and we experimented with steam with satisfactory results. I do not think the system of heating and ventilation in the House of Commons is a credit to the intelligence of the Office of Works or of the men who have been investigating the question. What is the use of passing legislation about the density of air in factories and compelling factory owners to introduce mechanical means of ventilation if we have an atmosphere such as this in the House of Commons?

Sir PARK GOFF: I desire to ask my hon. Friend two questions on Item A, "New Works, Alterations and Additions." Does that include any sum for the improvement of or addition to the lifts? The two lifts we have at the present time are, in my judgment, totally inadequate. Members and officials are kept waiting, and much valuable time is wasted. There is not a sufficient number of lifts in the House, and the two that exist are thoroughly unreliable. They are antiquated and continually breaking down, and the same remark applies to the service lifts from the kitchen to the dining-room, where those who are responsible often find they are at variance with Members over the question of cold food. As far as alterations are concerned, I merely want to ask whether that sum includes what has been suggested and, I believe, approved, namely, the turning of the Tudor Room
on the Terrace into a smoking-room, as the present smoking-room is considered inadequate, is often most uncomfortably overcrowded, and is much more suitable for a dining room, being on the same floor as the others, and adjoining the kitchen and services.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I do not pretend to understand the system of heating and ventilation, but I know it is by no means ideal, and this is the best place for getting a cold I have ever known. Hon. Members speak of cold feet. I can confirm that, and I venture to think that most Members can do the same. There have been several interesting points raised to-day, some of them about the alteration of the Chamber. I should oppose any alteration at the present moment. This Chamber has served its purpose for many years, and this is no time to spend money on its alteration. On the point of lengthy speeches, I am in sympathy with that. I moved a Resolution to that effect myself once, but the remedy proposed to-day is worse than useless. I see no advantage whatever in placing a clock on each side of the House. The House of Commons would then become like a billiard hall, except that hon. Members would not recognise the rules of billiards, because when the bell goes in the billiard hall the players sit down. What clock would affect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London? The only clock that would affect him would be a clock with a striking hammer strong enough and so manipulated as to hit him on the head and render him unconscious. Speeches could be shortened by a simpler method than that. We could agree on a certain time for speeches, and I think it would be an excellent thing, because a larger number of Members would then be permitted to take part in Debate, and the Debates would be more interesting because they would be more concentrated. If we could agree on a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes per speech, as the case may be, leaving out Ministers introducing Bills and so on, I think it would meet the case. At the end of that time, the Speaker would rise and Members would know their time was up. That is done at workmen's conferences, and I think it could be done here. The Closure has been referred to. I must confess I have voted against the Closure myself.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I was talking about the Guillotine Closure, which becomes automatic.

Mr. EDWARDS: Whatever Closure is put on is put on after very few speeches. There could be more speeches in that same time if they were curtailed. I have sat here till a quarter to seven on some occasions, and during that time only two speakers have taken part in the Debate. There is no manner of sense in that, whether it is the introduction of a Budget or not. It simply bores people to death There is a great room for improvement, but I do not believe this clock business is a solution. There is a clock here already. Why go to the expense of another? It has been said that the galleries are uncomfortable. I do not think the galleries are so very uncomfortable. I have sat here on a few occasions for all-night sittings and there were people in the Galleries all that time, and I wondered what on earth they saw in this place to sit there through the whole thing. Still, they sat there, and that does not suggest any great discomfort. This is no time to go in for alterations. We can go on for a considerable time yet, and I should be against any expenditure of the sort whatever.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Committee to come to a decision on these various matters. We believe it is one of the truest economies which this House can make that alterations to structural works, when sanctioned, should be undertaken at the earliest possible moment. The Department has as far as possible cut down expenditure; in fact, it has exceeded considerably the first demands for economy made upon it, and it has complied of its own volition with all the requests of the Geddes Committee. Such economies must necessarily be reflected in matters dealing with the House of Commons. The work of repairing Westminster Hall will be completed this year. The total cost is estimated at £120,000. I have been asked questions about decayed stonework. That is a matter which is causing the gravest concern to the Department. The decay is obvious to any hon. Member who takes an interest in the building. We have asked for only a small sum this year, so that we can remove those portions of decayed stonework which would be a danger either to Members of the
House or to the public in the vicinity of the building. In our judgment it is impossible in the circumstances to ask for anything like a sufficient sum to replace all decayed stonework at the present time. This is a matter which goes back to the early building of the Houses of Parliament and to the unfortunate choice of stone. It is due also to the fact that connections have been made in many cases by iron dowells. That by expansion and contraction leads to the splitting of the stonework. We can deal with the matter now only in a temporary way.

Mr. LORDEN: Is there a comprehensive report upon the subject?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, the matter has been gone into very carefully and, if the hon. Member desires to go into it more closely, I shall be happy to afford him every facility in my power. With regard to the ventilation of the House, the Office of Works, in conjunction with the the National Physical Laboratory at Kensington, is carrying out certain experiments with a model of the Chamber. I cannot say at the moment what the result of those experiments may be. So far as I am informed, any suggestions which have been made from time to time for the improvement of ventilation, are suggestions which must necessarily involve considerable expense. We feel that we cannot proceed with any precipitancy. The same argument applies to the alteration of the size and shape of this Chamber. In all the circumstances I do not think we are so badly off. A question was asked about a park-keeper. He is responsible for looking after the gardens of the Victoria Tower and for the general control of the public who have access to those gardens. A question was asked about the lifts. We have in the Estimates an amount for the insertion of a new goods lift for bringing up goods from the basement to the House. The question of the suitability of the present lift for Members has been raised before. That question also we are leaving over because of the great cost involved.
The question of alterations in the dining room and smoking room has been discussed, but it was found on investigation that the transfer of the smoking room from upstairs to what is known as the Tudor room, even if approved, would entail expenditure which we were
not prepared to advise. It is a matter which possibly at some future time will call for the careful consideration of the House, because everyone is agreed that if we can do anything which will improve the facilities in the dining room it will be an advantage to Members. Reference has been made to time recorders in the House. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the reduction has done so, I know, with no feeling of animus against the Department, but merely in order to raise this question. We are satisfied that, if the House should decide in favour of such an installation, it is possible to carry it out. So far as we are able to ascertain, the cost would be about £100. If the House decided that the work should be done, the necessary money can be found from the present Estimates. In the circumstances in which I am placed officially I hesitate to say anything either for or against such a proposal, but I ask Members to consider seriously whether it would be wise to carry out the scheme at this moment. Hon. Members have an opportunity of ventilating the question and possibly allowing it to come up at some future time, and, speaking as a private Member for the moment, I would throw out the hint that that course would be more advisable. In justice to those who have broached the subject, I must add that there is no technical objection which cannot be surmounted and, as I have said, the money can be found from the Estimates.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not understand whether the representative of the Office of Works is inviting the Committee to decide here and now on the subject of a time recorder. I am strongly opposed to disfiguring the House with entirely useless mechanical appliances, which can have no possible effect unless we proceed to other much more dangerous interferences with the freedom of debate. I would like to know how I am to vote if I desire to kill the proposal.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The opinion of my Department is that the matter is one for the decision of Members of the House. We can carry out the alterations, but a decision regarding it is left to the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the reduction of the Vote is carried, does it mean that the Office of Works will immediately put up these recorders, or would that be a
matter for a specific Motion after due notice?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the representative of the Government put on the Whips to tell for the Government or against the Government?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This Vote, I understand, is not specifically concerned with the time recorder. If the Amendment be carried against the Government, it simply reduces the Minister's salary to £5.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the House should agree to the Amendment which proposes to reduce the Vote by £5, that will be taken as a decision of the House, and the Office of Works will proceed to put up the recorder. That is not a ruling by me, but information which I offer to the House.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the representative of the Government answer my question?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No Whips will be put on. The matter is left entirely to the Committee. I understand that the reduction is on this specific question.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Surely it is unprecedented for the Government to propose a Vote and then, when a reduction is moved, not to put on the Government Whips. Is that not out of Order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must see that that is not a point of Order. It may be an unusual precedent.

Sir H. CRAIK: We are put into a very serious position. We come down here to support the Government, who propose a certain Vote. The Government say, "We will not put on our Whips in favour of the Vote. We will leave this to a chance vote, and if the chance vote goes against us we shall take it as a decision in favour of the proposal for recorders." To many of us who have the honour and traditions of the House most closely at heart, the proposal to instal recorders is a childish and silly proposal. I know quite well that all of us can say reciprocally that speeches are often too long and boring. I submit to that condemnation by my fellow Members. Younger Members lecture us older Members. I am ready to sit at the feet of the hon. Members for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden) and Dunfermline (Mr. T. Wallace) and to
take any lessons they chose to give. I have followed with care and interest, not in my own time only, the history of this House and its traditions, and anything more utterly futile and childish than this proposal I never heard put forward. I think it would be an evil thing to curtail the length of speeches in such a way as to supersede the good taste and judgment of hon. Members. Long speeches are mostly made by ambitious Members. If this proposal were adopted, some hon. Members would be continually calling attention to the advance of the time mark. If hon. Members are so lost to a sense of feeling as to exceed their time limit, why should they not do so? They have ample means of judging the length of time. As a matter of conscience I certainly mark the time when I rise to speak. I appeal to the Chair to say whether, when I have promised not to exceed a certain time, I have ever broken that promise. Would not a recorder distract the attention of the House and be a constant source of irritation? While many Members in defiance of the feelings of their colleagues continue to speak will this not have the effect of stirring them up to continue longer until they see the time limit recorded?

Major HAMILTON: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you called upon my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities then stood up on a point of Order, and he has now been addressing the Committee for some time.

Sir H. CRAIK: I did not rise on a point of Order; I rose to address the House. I put it to the Government—and I ask the attention of the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow—whether they are not putting hon. Members in a position of serious difficulty; in the Vote which they are asking the Committee to take. Why will they not put the position plainly before the Committee? Let us not allow ourselves to be trapped into taking any action on this matter which will alter the whole procedure as well as the appearance of the Chamber. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman if it is right that he should come down here and ask us to vote for him, and when we are ready to do so to inform us that the Government are not going to put on the Whips, but are going
to leave this matter to a chance vote, and that if the chance vote goes against us we are to accept that as the decision of the House?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Speaking as one who has had more experience of the House than any hon. Member present, I feel it necessary to point out to the younger generation the depths of ignorance which lie behind their presumptuous spirit of reform. I have heard the history of many revolutions brought about in all kinds of strange ways. It is said that Mirabeau broke down the old régime in France by one speech. I understand that a French Republic was established by one vote. But we shall have reached a remarkable stage of revolutionary fervour and political ineptitude if we are going to change the whole spirit of the rules of this House on the question of a clock. My hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of these Estimates must take his own responsibility, but I for one will protest to the last moment if we are, in this way, to make a revolution and a most mischievous revolution. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) made this proposal and he is not going to be officially opposed by the Whips, and I assume he may have a chance of getting his proposal passed—though I have a higher regard for the good sense of the House. Supposing it does pass and that a new clock is put up over there. What will happen? [HON. MEMBERS: "Over here!"] I observe that all the younger Members of the House want the clock put up as near to the Ladies' Gallery as possible. Supposing a clock is put up here or there or anywhere. A Member who rises to speak will be watching the clock, and though otherwise he might be content with five minutes, he will then take his full allowance of 10 minutes or whatever it be.
That is not the only thing. One of the reasons why I find a growing modesty in addressing the House is because it often seems to me to consist, not of Members who are listening to the man who is speaking, but of Members who are wondering when that bore will sit down, and give them their opportunity. If other hon. Members were as modest and as impressionable as I am, that would bring about a much better curtailment of speeches than the clock. We
shall always, however, have some vigilant Member watching the proceedings. Every House of Commons has a certain number of Members who, without disrespect to them, may be said to do the charwoman part of the proceedings. We would certainly have some Member who would make it his great function in life to watch that clock, just as in the old days there was a Member who was called "Count So and So," not because he possessed any such title of nobility, but because he was noted for being always in his place to propose a count. Similarly, we should have some hon. Member keeping his eye on this proposed clock, and the moment an hon. Member addressing the House went 30 seconds beyond the allotted time, he would immediately rise and call Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact. In such interruptions we should dissipate a great many more minutes than would be saved otherwise.
The history behind these matters goes to show that all these things can be trusted to time, to new considerations, and to new points of view. I had a conversation on this subject, not very long ago with the Lord President of the Council, who has been even longer in the House than I have. He recalled what I perfectly well remember myself, that a big Debate in former times really did not begin to be serious until about 10 or 11 o'clock at night. It was generally started by a two-hour speech, say by Disraeli, as the Leader of the Opposition, who was answered, say, by Gladstone, as Prime Minister, with another two-hours' speech. As the Lord President put it, very properly, neither Disraeli or Gladstone would have been considered to have done their duty by the House, or to have satisfied their Parliamentary consciences by delivering a speech a second shorter than two hours. That is all gone. When I first came into the House, I was very glad if I got to bed at four o'clock in the morning, but I took the precaution of never being called the next day until 12, and that is the reason why I am alive and kicking now, whereas all my friends who ordered their valets to bring in their cups of tea at eight o'clock in the morning are now in their graves. Those long hours have disappeared.
Then when a man rose at half-past one in the morning, especially if obstruction was being carried out, and began his speech by saying, "At this late hour I
appeal to the Government to agree to the Motion that the Chairman do report Progress," he was shouted at in derision. At half-past one in the morning we were really only starting. In the same way, speeches have gradually become shorter and shorter, even Ministerial speeches, and we can always trust to changing modern conditions, to the impatience and hurry of life generally, to the good sense of the House, and to the only restriction that should be put upon a Member, namely, the restriction of his own decency and decorum and the judgment of the House.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I protest against the procedure adopted by the Government. They never informed the Committee at the beginning of this Debate that they were going to ask us to decide finally on the adoption of this mechanical contrivance.

Commander BELLAIRS: My opening remark, when I moved a reduction of £5 on a previous occasion, was that this arrangement had been made, and it is by the suggestion of Mr. Speaker that this method of procedure is being carried out.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. and gallant Member did not tell the Committee in the Debate this afternoon.

Commander BELLAIRS: No, last week.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is absolutely nothing on the Paper to tell us that this was to be done, and before the Committee decides a thing of this kind on the suggestion of a private Member, it should be put down as a private Member's Motion and taken in private Member's time or, if the Government wish it to be discussed, then they ought to find a specific opportunity. What the Government are doing is that in Committee of Supply they are saying "We invite you to beat us." If a Government are beaten in Committee of Supply they usually resign, but in this case they are not going to resign. They say, "If you beat us, then we are going to put up time recorders." For what are these time recorders to be put up? It is in order that later on procedure may be introduced to curtail speeches, so that Ministers may be allowed an hour and private Members 20 minutes, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone, who sits behind the bureaucracy may further
entrench the bureaucracy against private Members. It is a deliberate trick on the part of the Government to deprive private Members of opportunities of making speeches and to deprive the Opposition of a chance of putting their case fully. The party to which I belong may some day be in Opposition—though I hope never—and I shall certainly protest and vote against this proposal to introduce mechanical contrivances and to create a revolution in the proceedings of the House by the introduction of a particular gag on the speeches of individual Members.

Mr. HOGGE: The Committee might easily come to a decision without involving itself in any of the difficulties suggested either by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) or by the hon. Member who has just spoken. In the first place no private Member could secure this scheme in any possible way except the way which has been adopted in this case. It is not possible for a private Member to impose a charge, and therefore a private Member could not get an opportunity in any other way than this. I am not going to discuss the merits of the proposal. I have only one thing to say as to the curtailment of speeches, and it is that if Mr. Speaker were only able to see those Members who sit through the Debates and allow them to talk, we should be very much better off. That is about the most useful criticism that I can make upon the subject. I suggest that nothing will be lost by taking the Division now. Supposing the Government are beaten, and the proposal to introduce the clocks succeeds—which I think is not likely—the Office of Works cannot proceed to put up the clocks. The Report stage of this Vote must be taken, and approved of before the clocks can be put up. Therefore if any hon. Member is suffering under a sense of injustice there is ample opportunity to revive the question, and if it is considered that the Committee has acted wrongly on this occasion, hon. Members can seek to put it right on the Report stage. As to the Government taking off the Whips, the only objection I have to that is that it not done more frequently. It would be a benefit to the House always, and particularly in Committee, not only in Committee of Supply but in Committee on all large Bills, if
Whips were only put on when principles were involved, and taken off when the details were being considered. I hope the Committee will agree to take the Division now, and I think there will be an opportunity of putting the matter right if it is considered that we do wrong on the present occasion.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Might I suggest that before we go to a Division we should be given the benefit of the views of the Leader of the House upon this question? It is a very serious question in itself, and it is also a very serious departure from the practice and procedure of this House. We are practically invited now to vote against the Government's own Estimates, and one subject out of about a dozen that has been discussed to-day is to be taken to determine this Vote. Such a thing has never been done in the whole history of this House, and it is a very dangerous departure from practice. The Debate to-day has ranged over a very wide variety of subjects, and we are informed that one particular subject that has been discussed to-day is to be decided by this Vote, and that if we decide to reduce the salary of the Minister by £5, these abominations of clocks are to be put up to stop private Members making speeches when they have exceeded five or ten minutes, or whatever the limit may be. That revolution strikes at the very heart of the practice of this House, and it certainly should not be done without full consideration. I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that a Motion could not be made by a private Member to create a charge, but that does not prevent the Government from putting down a Motion creating a charge. The Government should do it if they are satisfied that this ought to be done, and if the Government think it ought not to be done the Government ought to put their Whips on against this ridiculous proposition. I think we should like to be guided by the Leader of the House.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not want to stand between the House and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as I feel that this is exactly the kind of case in which the Committee would desire the opinion of the Leader of the House before coming to a decision, but may I say that I cannot help thinking the procedure
adopted is an unfortunate one. I do not know at all what would be the state of mind of other hon. Members of the Committee, but I had no conception myself that this was coming on. I listened to a great part of the Debate, but went out to refresh the inner man for a few minutes, and then I came back and suddenly found that this Division which we are to take was to determine a question which can only be the prelude to a great constitutional change in the proceedings of this House. I think no one will appreciate more than my right hon. Friend the extremely inconvenient character of that kind of procedure. This question of the length of speeches, he knows, has been discussed over and over again, and I believe that all the greatest Parliamentary authorities, though they have always considered it at first with good will, have always come to the conclusion that practically it would be a disastrous change. I believe, as far as my experience goes, that that is the universal view. All of us who have been any time in this House have given attention to the question of how we could make the procedure of the House more businesslike, how we could avoid waste of time, and how, above all, we could avoid the unreality which occasionally afflicts the Debates in this House. I believe that everyone has always ultimately come to the conclusion that to try to limit artificially and by a cast-iron rule the speeches in this House would really be to take from it one of its great advantages. I think that myself, but surely, before we make such a change as is now proposed, we ought at any rate to know clearly what we are doing and have full knowledge of what we are likely to decide, and we should not suddenly, half-way through the Debate, be faced with the intimation that the Division we are now going to take is going to be more or less decisive of this question. That is not the way in which this subject ought to be decided. It is a question that ought to be determined with the utmost deliberation, for it is a departure from the whole traditions of this House that have existed for 700 years. For these reasons, I hope my right hon. Friend will give us the benefit of his advice as Leader of the House, not as Lord Privy Seal or as a Member of the Government, but will advise the Committee what, in his opinion, he thinks is most consistent with its dignity and reputation.

Commander BELLAIRS: I do not wish to press this Amendment, in view of some hon. Members thinking they have not received proper notice, but I may point out that I raised this very difficulty. I regarded it as not in my interests that I should move a reduction and not in the interests of the Committee which had considered this matter and taken a lot of trouble over it, and I said the House would never understand it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What Committee?"] An unofficial Committee upstairs that went into the matter. The procedure is one which was adopted on the very occasion when there was much trouble over removing the Secretaries' Gallery from under the Clock to behind the Speaker's Chair. The House felt aggrieved because it was not consulted, and a reduction was moved on this particular Vote in order to raise the question. What I would suggest to the Government now is this: We have waited a whole Session to raise this question, and we have taken a great deal of trouble about it. Could they give us a definite portion of time when the question could be debated in the House and go to a Division on this definite issue, say, one evening during the Session at 8.15? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then in that case I fear I cannot "withdraw my Amendment, because I shall not get another opportunity. I would remark that hon. Members who have complained are all Members who make long speeches, and I do not want them to go away with a sense of injustice. Let us have this definite question discussed on a definite date, so that they will know exactly what is happening, and let the opinion of the House be obtained in the Division Lobby to decide this question, of course, without the Government Whips being put on.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I am somewhat embarrassed. I was not present during the major portion of the discussion, and I can only gather the feelings of the Committee from such short speeches as I have heard, and from what has been reported to me since I entered the Committee. The position of the Government is that this suggestion of putting clocks in the side galleries was made by certain hon. Members, and the Government was pressed to say whether the thing was practicable or not, and to adopt the proposal when it was found practicable. My hon. and gallant Friend
who represents the Office of Works and the First Commissioner of Works, who are directly responsible, said they were not prepared to father an innovation of this kind in the House, but that they were the servants of the House, only anxious to carry out the wishes of the House, and that they would facilitate the free expression of the will of the House by the procedure which has been adopted to-day, namely, of accepting the Amendment for a nominal reduction of the Vote as a test action, so to speak, without putting on the Government Whips or treating it as if the responsibility of the Government were directly involved in the Estimate which they were presenting. That particular procedure was suggested, I think, not without consultation with the authorities of the House, as being the one which, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has just reminded us, was applied to a similar change in our domestic arrangements, when the officials who are brought down to give their assistance to Ministers were moved from the other end of the House to the bench behind the chair, and I do not know how we could find a more convenient method of testing the opinion of the House. I cannot go back on the promise we made to my hon. and gallant Friend—I think it was publicly made—that he should have an opportunity of testing the opinion of the House on the subject. If, in fact, it be the case that the Committee has been taken by surprise, and the result were a small and unrepresentative division, I do not think the Committee or my hon. and gallant Friend would expect us to take that as a final decision, or to introduce the innovation on anything but a clear indication of the will of the House.

Mr. HOGGE: Not until after the Report stage of the Vote.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not until it had been confirmed by the House on Report, certainly. That is a very fair condition, but I am afraid it could not be restored on Report. If £5 be deducted now, it would be out of order to restore that £5 on Report, and I am unwilling to see the Estimates of my hon. Friend disappearing bit by bit. So much for the immediate prospect. I really do not think I could undertake to give any time specially to consider whether clocks
should be placed in the side galleries or not, but I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) and by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) for my personal opinion, or my opinion as Leader of the House. I have never been able to convince myself that the House would gain anything by fixing an arbitrary limit of time to speeches. Suppose you are thinking of something in the nature of obstructive tactics, a very small calculation will show that the shortest limit that you can give is yet enough to enable a party in the House to destroy a Parliamentary Session, if unchecked by any other device. They have only to organise a succession of 10 - minute speeches to occupy all the time, and more than all the time that is now occupied by speeches with no such limit. What we desire to discourage is not length of speeches, but thinness of speeches, subject without matter.

Mr. MacVEAGH: And frequently bad speeches.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But is it our experience that short speeches have a higher percentage of merit than longer speeches? I should doubt it very much. To the making of the longer speeches there has usually gone a considerably larger measure of thought. They are a serious undertaking for most of us, and we do not habitually embark upon them unless we have something to say which, at any rate, we think is worth saying; and certainly many of the most interesting speeches that I have heard—I should think the majority of the speeches to which the House listens with most interest—are speeches which would fall under the knife of any such Rule as that, and which the House would be the poorer for having

6.0 P.M.

so curtailed. So far as I am concerned, I cannot, conceive that we are going to decide this issue on a question of whether we have a recorder confronting us or not. It is my fate, nowadays, not infrequently to be obliged to wind up a Debate with a harassing undercurrent of thought, disturbing to the arguments I am trying to put before the House, as I glance at the clock, and see the minute hand approaching eleven. I cannot believe it will improve the argumentation of Members to see something like that irritating machine in a taxi-cab ticking off the minutes. Nor can I believe that if there be a wilful prolongation of the Debate, the Member engaged in the performance will derive anything but encouragement from the progress of the clock. Nor, again, can I believe that the House is really going to decide so grave an issue as a new Standing Order, putting a limit to the length of speeches, on a question of whether there is to be a meter on one side or other of the House. I hope my hon. Friend will not think I am dealing unkindly with him, but I am frankly sorry, especially since I have had such indications of the opinion of the House, that he should have come under the obligation not to put the Whips on. But the House is a very reasonable assembly. Its wisdom, when it chooses to exercise it, is not less than the wisdom of the Government, and if I commend this question to the free decision of the House, it is in the confident belief that the House will be governed by experience and common sense, and vote it down once and for all.

Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £75,245 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 199.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[6.5 p.m.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jameson, John Gordon
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lorden, John William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rae, H. Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hogge, James Myles
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Commander Bellairs and Mr. Wallace.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Banton, George


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut-Colonel Martin
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Barnston, Major Harry


Barrand, A. R.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hayday, Arthur
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring).


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford).


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bruton, Sir James
Hudson, R. M.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Irving, Dan
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butcher, Sir John George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Seddon, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Kennedy, Thomas
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kenyon, Barnet
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kidd, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cope, Major William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Stanley. Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd, George Butler
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lort-Williams, J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sugden, W. H.


Dean, Commander P. T.
Lunn, William
Sutton, John Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Swan, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Taylor, J.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Evans, Ernest
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Tickler, Thomas George


Fell, Sir Arthur
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Fitzroy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Tryon, Major George Clement


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Foot, Isaac
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Forrest, Walter
Mosley, Oswald
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
White, Charles F (Derby, Western)


Galbraith, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Gillis, William
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading).


Gould, James C.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Windsor, Viscount


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wise, Frederick


Green, Albert (Derby)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parker, James
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Greer, Sir Harry
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Gretton, Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Grundy, T. W.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness and


Hailwood, Augustine
Pratt, John William
Major Mackenzie Wood.


Hancock, John George
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.



Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Now that the question of a time recorder has been satisfactorily settled, I should like to make a suggestion which, I think, would meet with the approval of the Committee. It is that there should be a name recorder placed in the tea-room, and another in the newspaper-room, so that hon. Members there may know who is taking part in the Debate. There are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, recorders in different parts of the House, some of them in convenient places and others in incon-
venient places, but I venture to suggest that the Committee as a whole would agree that two of the most convenient places in which these recorders could be placed are the tea-room and the newspaper-room. I do not know what the cost of these instruments is. Probably it would not be possible to effect the change this year, but I do suggest to the hon. Gentleman—and I think I should have the assent of the Committee in so doing—that he should consider this with a view, if possible, to introducing a convenient change of this nature next year.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,013,480, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."—[Note: £521,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I trust the Minister in charge will explain to the House the reason for this large sum of money. This is the first large Estimate this year for public buildings. Having made a study of the Estimate in this connection, I find that this year it comes to £10,047,000. This money is being spent in the erection of new buildings, cost of maintenance, and repairs. It is true to say that in this particular Vote only £1,500,000 is being asked for, but it is customary, when discussing new buildings at the beginning, for the Minister to explain the Vote, and the policy which underlies the particular Vote. This £10,000,000 this year is excessive. We know well that through the erection of houses prices have been forced up unduly. They are slowing down, and the cost of houses is falling sharply. The contention we on this side of the Committee put forward is that, in view of the high cost and in view of the real necessity for the erection of working-class dwellings, this large sum of money should not be spent this year, because it will divert £1,500,000 of capital. There is going on in London and in different portions of Great Britain a diversion of capital and labour to the erection of these buildings at the expense—and this is the point—of working-class dwelling-houses and cottages throughout the country. It is true that the Ministry have reduced the amount this year. We gladly recognise that fact, but we desire to draw attention for the first time to this very large sum of money, £10,000,000, which the policy of the Government entails.
This particular Vote in pre-War days, in 1913, amounted to £640,000. In going through this Estimate I have put to myself one or two questions as to why these new buildings should be erected. Is it because of the Safeguarding of Industries Act leading to a necessity for larger ware-
houses and bigger Custom houses in the various ports? To-day, and every day, at Question time, we hear of the numerous delays which are taking place in the clearing of goods from oversea markets to British ports. Is it because there is not sufficient accommodation in the Customs houses of Great Britain that the Government are asking for this sum of money? I should like to address a few questions to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who will, I understand, reply on behalf of the Government. On page 36 of the Estimates I notice, under the heading of "Works in Progress, England and Wales," that no money has been taken this year. Last year a fair sum of money was spent on the different buildings. Are these buildings finished? Are some of them? Have the Government delayed the erection of these buildings in view of the necessity for public economy? If so, could they not adopt this policy in other directions, and so save some of this million and a half? I see on page 33 of the Estimates that the total cost of these revenue buildings, in which is included Customs and Excise, Post Office, and Telegraph, etc., is £2,606,000. I hope the Government will change their policy in this matter. This pouring out the money of the taxpayer—who is feeling the burden—pouring out this £10,000,000 in the erection of new buildings——

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): It is not out of order for the hon. Gentleman to mention the £10,000,000, but it would be impossible to discuss it on each item of these various Votes.

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no desire to be out of order, but I desire just to refer to the policy which creates the expenditure of these various Departments and thought I was entitled to do so on this First Vote for New Works. It is the first opportunity we have had of criticising general policy as applied to buildings. I shall be interested in hearing the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. No doubt he has been directed and informed by the Post Office, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his assistants, because it is these two Departments which are mainly responsible for this expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, through his Customs and Excise officers and his Inland Revenue officers, is asking the country this year to find nearly £500,000 for new buildings, while the
Post Office is coming to the House and asking for £1,100,000. It is not as if this country had not been bearing excessive Post Office charges. The Post Office may say that this is capital expenditure. They may say they are raising money in certain loans, and that the money is going to be so spent. But I suggest that the first step the Post Office should take should be to curtail the £475,000 which they are asking the House of Commons for this evening in their Vote for New Works, Alterations, and Additions.
I could elaborate that argument, but I have no desire to do so, as I believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is as anxious to see a reduction of expenditure as any of us. The Departments who create this expenditure are not here this evening. There is no representative of the Treasury present to justify to the Committee the expenditure of £500,000 on the buildings to which I have referred. Is it fair to the House of Commons or the Members who study these Estimates? Is it fair to the taxpayers outside to be asked to find the money we are asked to find day by day in the maintenance of these officials and the erection of these buildings?

Mr. WISE: On page 45 of the Estimates there is an item, Imperial Wireless Chain, and it says: "Works Services in connection with the Imperial Wireless Chain £100,000." There was no amount at all for 1921–22. Perhaps the Minister, or his representative, would give an explanation of this amount?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved this reduction will not use the argument that the building of these public buildings diverts labour from working-class dwellings and cottages. It is fairly obvious, and fairly well known, that the type of labour for this kind of buildings would not be employed on working-class dwellings and cottages—in fact, that the workmen would not accept such employment.

Sir G. COLLINS: But in this sum of money there is the cost of maintenance and repairs. Surely the Noble Lord will agree that the money so spent on labour could only be diverted from the maintenance or the repair of other types of buildings?

Lord E. PERCY: It depends whether the repairs were internal or external. But what I want to question the Minister upon is this: In the Estimates before us now the Customs and Excise and Revenue Buildings do not appear to be going in for a very considerable amount. Therefore I think we may disregard that King Charles' head. A good deal of the Estimate in the Post Office Vote is in respect of buildings which already have been begun, and on which much money has been spent. I am not disposed to make any particular complaint about that, but if hon. Members will turn to page 42 they will see, amongst other items, "Proposed works, London district." It appears that new buildings to the total extent of, I think, roughly £100,000 are being begun this year. It does appear to me to be a most serious piece of expenditure that we should begin these new Post Office buildings, and that the Post Office have not apparently been able to exercise the same self-restraint as the Customs and Inland Revenue Department, but have rushed in and demanded from the Exchequer these very large sums for expending in 1922–23 on new buildings. I desire to press for some explanation of this very extraordinary thing.

Sir J. GILMOUR: My Noble Friend tried to lead the Committee to think that we were spending enormous sums of money upon new public buildings. On actual new works the contrary is really the case, more this year than in any other year in the history of these big public Departments. If you take the Inland Revenue buildings, the particular Vote which we are now discussing, the actual expenditure on proposed new works is about £99,000, and on the total of the whole Vote it is something like £328,000, and not £4,000,000. It is true that in a great many cases the Departments after the War necessarily have to make demands for considerable sums for maintenance. That is inevitable after the years through which we have passed, but the Department has been met in every way, by both the Revenue Department and the Post Office, in our endeavour to cut down as much as possible expenditure upon public buildings. In many cases the Post Office have represented to us that we are curtailing unfairly the development of the postal service. We have set up as a particular standard in
coming to a decision largely the medical reports and the reports from the staffs employed. I venture to assert that those hon. Members interested in this question of economy would, if they read those medical reports, recognise that in giving way as we have done in some cases, we are only doing so in the public interest.
We recognise very fully that there must be economy. The hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) made an inquiry with regard to the wireless chain which appears on the Estimates for the first time. That is in pursuance of an arrangement come to by the Imperial Wireless Telegraphy Committee, and it is in accordance with the agreement made in 1919 for the erection of stations in England, Egypt, East Africa, and Hong Kong and possibly one in Canada. We do not anticipate that anything like the full amount we are asking for will be actually expended this year because it will take a considerable time to select the stations.

Mr. WISE: Does the £100,000 put up five stations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is the amount we are asking for this year for this purpose, but I do not anticipate that the whole amount will be required this year. The hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) asked me a question about the scheme for the proposed new works. May I point out that some of them have already been completed, but in the case of those with which we are proceeding we have cut them down by agreement with the Post Office, and that Department has been reasonable in its dealings with us. For these reasons I am afraid this expenditure is absolutely necessary if the postal service is to be properly developed.

Sir G. COLLINS: Some doubt has been thrown on the figures which I gave to the Committee. I have looked through the whole of these Estimates to find out the amount spent on new works and the amount spent on maintenance and repairs. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned a sum of £400,000 which might be spent this year on new works——

The CHAIRMAN: That is not the Estimate which is before the Committee. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who replied represents the Office of Works.

Mr. FOOT: I hope this Amendment will be pressed to a Division. I want some further information about the considerable sums of money which are put down in this Estimate. A case can be made out for any amount of expense, and Post Office officials in any part of the country can argue that the service will suffer unless their schemes are carried through. At a time when we have to restrict expenditure in every other direction, there is no justification for spending £500,000 in this way at this time. In relation to new schools, a multitude of children in this country are shut out, and a large number are learning under almost impossible conditions, and when an appeal is made for the erection of new schools which have been delayed for many years, we are told it is impossible to incur the expenditure at this time of financial stringency. If that holds good as regards the children, it should hold good in relation to other Departments. If we have not the money to enable children to be taught under proper conditions at a time when expenditure upon education can be justified, I think there is no reason why we should support this Vote. I think the children have our first claim, and if a denial of education is to be persisted in, I think that will justify us in resisting this Vote.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I wish to raise a point in regard to rents. Last year we built very heavily. On Customs and Excise buildings we spent over £23,000 in new works, and on the Inland Revenue buildings you spent £253,000, or over a quarter of a million. Last year this House gave its sanction to a very large sum for buildings in respect of the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue. If you take so large a sum for building your own premises, why have your rents gone up? I should have thought that the more you build the less rent you would have to pay, but I find that is not the case. When it comes to the next Vote I shall be obliged to ask a similar question. I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to explain why the rents have gone up when there is such a considerable sum for new works. I do not understand why you want two new sorting offices at Ludlow and Hereford, because those places are only about 30 miles apart.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I want to call attention to three different headings,
F, L, and Q. They all include items for fuel and light and household articles. I do not know what is included in household articles. There is £265,000 for fuel. I want to ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfied that the Regulations made by his Department to ensure economy in fuel and light have been carried out. During the coal strike last year we found that it was possible to economise very largely in fuel and light, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us that the utmost economy has been used in this respect.

Sir J. GILMOUR: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) about rents, I find that in a great many of these cases the actual amount of rent has been under-estimated. This matter has been very carefully gone into, and certain adjustments have had to be made in consequence. In addition to that when leases fall in, in most cases we have to pay an increased rent. There is another factor which also runs through all these votes, and that is that we have consistently tried to postpone building operations. In cases where we have previously taken money for building operations and postponed them, we have actually had to rent premises. With regard to the question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) every care is being taken so far as it is possible by directions and regulations to secure economy in the use of fuel and light, and while there may be much to be desired in this respect I am satisfied that the Department is fully alive to the importance of these matters.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has quite understood the point raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). The point is that the amount voted for buildings has gone up and at the same time rents have gone up. A considerable amount of money has been spent in building and coincidentally the amount paid in rent has gone up, and it does not seem on the face of it how those two things can go up together. This point is not answered by saying in a rather cryptic way that the estimate for rent has been under-estimated in past years. I know I could not readjust the rent which I have arranged to pay, and even the Government which has under-
estimated rent should not readjust it in that way. Personally I am not quite sure that I should join in any criticism of the Government for spending money on buildings at the present time if they are really necessary. There seems to me a good deal to be said for spending money on really necessary building works at a time when unemployment is rife. If we manage our affairs in a businesslike way and arrange for all public authorities, at a time when trade and employment are abundant, not to do any work that can possibly be put off until such time as employment is scarce and labour abundant, it will be a very desirable thing. It should be done in a systematic way, not only by the Government, but by all public authorities throughout the country. I have often heard that suggested to successive Governments, and they have promised they will consider it, but as far as I know, it has never been considered. If the Government can really satisfy the Committee that this expenditure is necessary, and that it will have to be done sooner or later, then I think it should be started even at a time when economy is necessary—it should be done at a time when unemployment is bad, and I for one would not be inclined to criticise the Government very severely, providing, of course, they are not wasting money by doing things which are not really necessary. We must not squander money even for the sake of giving employment. For these reasons I shall be glad to be assured by the Government that they have looked into these matters, and that these are things which will have to be done sooner or later. If they can satisfy the Committee on that point, I shall not be disposed to press my criticism any further.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Assistant-Postmaster-General (Mr. Pike Pease) in his place. We are on Vote M, as I understand, and I see that the Post Office proposes to spend considerable sums of money on new buildings. I agree with the Noble Lord who last spoke that, if it is necessary to spend money on new buildings, this is a very good time to do it, inasmuch as unemployment is rife, and the cost of building materials has fallen. But I am not at all sure that some of these proposed expenditures are necessary. I see that, in connection with
the Threadneedle Street branch post office there is a Vote for £89,500 for works services, £425 for fittings and furniture, and £75 for removal expenses. The probable expenditure to the 31st March, 1922, is put at £5,000, and the amount required for 1922–23 at £60,000. My right hon. Friend will remember that last year I raised this particular question, and he was good enough to ask me to go and examine the buildings for myself. I did so. I went over the office. Some of the rooms were very dirty, but a little whitewash, in my opinion, would have remedied that. It did not seem to me to require a considerable sum of money to be spent on that. Then there was the question of the rooms set apart for staff luncheons. They were at the top of the house, and undoubtedly very inconvenient. I told my right hon. Friend what was my opinion at the time. I suggested that, because the top storey was inconvenient, it was utterly unnecessary to pull the whole building down and rebuild it from the bottom. The building is a very substantial one; it consists of very good stone, probably Portland stone. I remember it for the last 30 or 40 years. The stone has stood extremely well, and I think it would be possible to put a new top storey on that building at considerably less cost than is proposed now to be incurred. A new top storey is all that is required, that is, supposing you are going to continue the practice of cooking luncheons for the people employed in the Post Office. I pointed out to my right hon. Friend it was not the custom in the City to provide meals for clerks in the office. In the City space is very restricted and it is found very much more convenient for people engaged in business to go outside for luncheon.
When I was a bank director we had to consider the question of the employment of women, and at that time it was rather difficult for women to obtain a decent lunch in the City. The question was raised whether or not we should make an innovation and provide luncheons for our women clerks, but it was found to be so expensive and inconvenient that we did not do it. It seems to me that the whole reason given for rebuilding this particular office is that a more convenient place may be provided in which the staff can have their luncheons. That appears
to me to be utterly ridiculous at any time, but in these days when we are suffering from such an enormous burden of taxation, to suggest the advisability of spending something like £80,000 on such purpose is simply absurd. It must be remembered, too, that when once the building is started upon we have no guarantee that £80,000 will cover the expenditure. I know my right hon. Friend is a kind-hearted man and likes to have things very nice, but we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. We cannot afford to do this sort of thing at this moment. There are some people who hope that in the forthcoming Budget the Income Tax will be reduced. It cannot be reduced unless we stop expenditure of this sort, and therefore I sincerely hope that this sum of £89,000 will be cut down.
I come next to another set of proposals for building new offices. At Accrington it is proposed to spend £23,395; at Brighton £48,470 on a new sorting office and telephone exchange; at Chester £7,100 on an enlargement of the building; at Coventry £27,200 on a new sorting office; at Crewe £33,150 on an enlargement of the sorting office; at Harrogate £26,290 on a new sorting office; at Ipswich £24,750 on a new sorting office, and a Surveyor's office; at Lancaster £32,365 on a new post office; at Luton £37,500 on a new post office; at Oldham £14,150 on a new sorting office, and at Reading £86,000 on a new post office. Yet Reading has gone on very well for a long time without a new post office, and I venture to suggest to the Committee that we ought to put an end for the moment to this enormous expenditure by the Department on new buildings. At Retford £7,785 is proposed to be expended on a new post office; at Rochdale £51,300 on a new post office; at St. Anne's-on-Sea £10,000 on a new post office; at Southport £18,875; at Wembley £16,470 on a new post office; at Weymouth £14,265; at Dundee £41,200 on a post office extension; at the General Post Office, West, £32,000 on an additional storey; at Bridgend £14,340 on a new post office and telephone exchange; at Chepstow £11,305 on new buildings; at Darwen £13,260 on a new post office; at Halifax £17,500 on an extension of the post office and telephone exchange; at Hereford the Estimate provides for £10,515 on a new sorting office, and at Maidenhead £13,000 for a post office
extension and telephone exchange. Then there is also provision for urgent and unforeseen works.
The total Estimate is for £531,340, and I hope this Committee will take the line of telling the Postmaster-General that we cannot afford to go in for this extensive scheme of building operations by the Post Office at the present moment. We are getting on very well with the existing buildings, and it must be remembered that while it is proposed to spend more money on post offices, we have less facilities, and therefore do not really require more room for carrying on that lesser quantity of work. I hope the Committee will see that we cannot get a reduction of taxation until we also have a reduction of expenditure. I notice that the total of £531,000 is subject to a reduction of £66,000 in respect of works which may not be carried out during the year, but, on the other hand, it is proposed to spend £272,000 on maintenance and repairs, and £56,000 on furniture. I see there is an item of fuel, candles and household articles for the General Post Office and branch offices in the London district. It amounts to £92,000. What are the candles wanted for at the present time? I thought we always had electric light.

Mr. WISE: They are used for sealing wax.

7.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: It would be better to burn a little oil rather than candles for that purpose, for the candles only waste when the sealing wax is applied to them. I am sorry to say I have been rather occupied this afternoon, otherwise there might have been some other points I should have wished to put to my hon. and gallant Friend. I think, however, I have asked him enough for the moment, and I will conclude by saying that I hope the House will support me in my endeavour to reduce expenditure on unnecessary matters.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I should like to call attention to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) just now. He gave the Government certain advice, and suggested that at the present time they should do as much building as they possibly could in view of the large amount of unemployment that exists. I should like to protest against that. The Noble Lord said,
do not build in a boom period, but build in a slump. The present period, so far as the building trade is concerned, is the tail-end of a boom rather than a slump. Building costs to-day are probably twice what they will be in the course of another 12 months, and to start building now on a rapidly falling market that has slumped in a most remarkable way ever since the resignation of the late Minister of Health (Dr. Addison) and the appointment of his successor, and which if left to itself will enable the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department and others to do their building next year at a very much lower rate than they can at present, is a very unwise policy. The kindest thing that you can do to the unemployed at present is not to be spending money at the present time on putting up buildings which, when erected, will not be worth anything like what they have cost to build. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be persuaded by the eloquence of the Noble Lord to put in hand at the present time any buildings that can be dispensed with at the moment.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am very glad to have the opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) with regard to the Vote for the Post Office, but I would first like to point out that the figure has fallen from £817,900 for the year 1920–21 to £475,340 for 1922. That includes all alterations, and is not all for new works, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend.
With regard to the Threadneedle Street Post Office, last year, after the Debate in the House, I said to my right hon. Friend in the Lobby that if he would only come down and see it I was absolutely certain—I was wrong in this—that he would be convinced it was necessary that it should be rebuilt. The position of that office is unique. It is the Stock Exchange Telegraph Office. I have had the privilege of being Assistant Postmaster-General for seven years, but this work was decreed long before I came into that position. The amount of work done there is very abnormal compared with other post offices. There are sometimes 6,000 telegrams in one hour leave that office. The reason why the people have to have their meals in that office is because the work is so great and
comes in quite unknown quantities. Sometimes there is a very great rush, and therefore it is necessary to have meals at the post office itself. Everyone in the City who has knowledge of these matters knows in regard to this problem that it is not at all easy for people at certain hours to get their food very quickly, and that is why it is necessary for us to make special arrangements. The office is an absolute disgrace to the service. The sanitary arrangements are close to the kitchen and where the people work. The clerks themselves in that office would not work there if there were not certain advantages with regard to Bank holidays and other days which give them an advantage over others in post offices elsewhere. With regard to the medical report, that is the crux of the situation. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Gilmour) mentioned, the reason why these post offices are being rebuilt or alterations are being made in them is chiefly the medical reports, and I am absolutely convinced that the right hon. Baronet would not for a moment allow anyone employed by himself to work daily in an office like the Threadneedle Street Post Office.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not see anything wrong with the lower part of the post office. I agree that the top part and the basement were not right, but the basement could be cleared out, meals not taken in it, and that would be all right. It is a question of meals, and of meals only.

Mr. PEASE: I should like to invite hon. Members to come and see this post office, and I am convinced that nine out of 10 would not agree with my right hon. Friend. With regard to the other post offices, I am not at all satisfied with the amount we are being allowed to do in connection with this work. Everybody knows that, owing to the calamitous War, much necessary work has not been carried out, and as regards this money which is sought, I think it is the smallest sum ever asked for in the history of the Post Office. I could deal with other post offices which have been mentioned, but as far as the Threadneedle Post Office is concerned I should be very glad if hon. Members who feel strongly on this question would inspect it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to support this Vote, and I feel very much inclined to support the views of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). I rather regret myself that the Vote is such a reduction on the previous one as I do feel that now is the time to embark on any useful work that can be done with regard to building such as is mentioned in these Estimates. We are constantly told that this is not the right time, that we must wait perhaps another twelve months, that costs have come down so much, and will come down a great deal more, but one wonders what will be the position of the people in the country by the time we have reached that particular psychological moment when it is the right time to spend some more money. Especially with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), I am afraid that pretty well the whole of the people of this country will be starved to death before we reach the proper time for commencing building operations and spending any reasonable sums of money.
I think we have run the idea of economy too far altogether, therein making a very grave mistake, because we have already practically three million people doing nothing, and it will be a sound policy for the money to be spent as is suggested in these Estimates. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who complains about money being spent which, so far as I can gather, is to make the conditions of work of those engaged in the post offices in London better. I have not had the experience of seeing these offices, but in some parts of this Metropolis I have seen servants engaged by the Government whose working conditions are such as would not be tolerated in any single cotton mill in Lancashire. Absolutely wrong altogether are the conditions under which they are employed. There is one mentioned in the Vote that was read out by the right hon. Baronet with regard to Oldham. I cannot say very much about the other items in the Estimates, but I do know something about that, and I know it is one that ought to be started upon because it is work that has been required for many years. The conditions of the employés in part of the Post Office arrangements is very, Very bad indeed, and money spent that will
make the conditions of people better, and money that can be spent now at a time when we have certainly dropped 40 to 50 per cent, from the high peak of the building costs, would be really sound and economical expenditure. We shall soon have to come to a decision as to when we are to determine there will be a new and reasonable level of prices. It is all very well to say that we will wait until pre-War prices are restored. If we do that, we may wait 10 years. Surely we are not going to wait to do useful work for a period such as that. If we do, what sort of position will employment in this country be in? We are talking economy and saying that we cannot afford to do this, that, and the other, but a great deal of this expenditure is capital expenditure. What is the use of saying that a powerful country like ours cannot afford the paltry sums like these which are necessary to keep going efficiently the services of the State?

Amendment negatived.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,474,950, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."—[Note: £1,080,000 has been voted on account.]

Viscount CURZON: I would like again to draw attention to the matter on which I spoke on the last, Vote, namely, the immense sum provided for fuel, light, and what are called household effects. I confess I do not understand the household effects part, but does the House realise that in the Votes under discussion to-day no less than £900,000 is involved all together? I have added up the amount provided for fuel and light in all these Votes, and it comes to £873,550. That is the amount in the Votes under discussion in the House to-day. That is not the whole amount. The whole amount is £24,000 more than that, which comes to very nearly £900,000 all together. Surely it would be possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to issue an order to every Department saying that it must show a definite percentage of reduction on this expenditure. We
all know what Government Departments are like in the use of fuel and light. We know what the conditions are in this House. We have only to go round the building to see any amount of waste. This enormous sum involves very nearly £1,000,000 for fuel. I do beg the House to go carefully into this, and I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give us a good explanation.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to say that this is a matter which is always engaging our attention, and, indeed, repeated orders are issued on the subject. My Noble Friend (Viscount Curzon) and hon. Members must remember that in a large number of cases we are taking our light from public companies, and that the charges have in recent times gone up.

Viscount CURZON: Are not you rationed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Every effort is made to do that, and I wish hon. Members would assist me in the rationing of light even in this particular building to which my Noble Friend has referred. My difficulty is that I am being pressed in the matter of fuel and light by hon. Members to increase them. I am sure the Department is doing everything it can in this matter.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not really see why rents are going up in view of this tremendous building. I do not understand it from the explanation of my hon. and gallant Friend. If rents keep on going up, notwithstanding that we are building, it really becomes a question whether we are going to stop building and hold on to our leases. I find that rents have increased by £3,000 since last year, although last year the House voted the sum of £850,000 for new buildings. That is very extraordinary, and it occurs in every Vote. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the reason was partly that the Government had under-estimated the rents, but in another Vote which is coming along immediately exactly the same thing has happened. Apparently they have under-estimated the rents in every single case, and I really do not understand, from my hon. and gallant Friend's explanation, how it has arisen. My Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) just now drew attention to the very large increase under certain heads, but he did not give the
actual figures. I have noted the figures since I have been in the Committee, and under this head of Public Buildings I find that the cost of electric light and gas alone has gone up from £9,000 last year to £55,000 this year, or six times what it was last year. We find, too, that the amount for coal and firewood in Scotland was £600 last year, while now it is £10,100. It has gone up 18 times. Then we find that the water costs under this particular heading were £2,500 last year, while they are £20,000 this year. They have gone up eight times. Is that an underestimate? I think that before this Vote is taken my hon. and gallant Friend ought to say something in defence of these extraordinary increases.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I cannot convince my hon. Friend. All I can say is that, as I said before, the rents in a good many cases were underestimated.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In every case.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Not in every case, but in a good many cases they were underestimated, and, of course, these rents had to be paid out of the general Vote from other savings. That was undesirable, and, the attention of the Department having been turned to the matter, they have frankly admitted that they have under-estimated the amounts, and have endeavoured to put the matter right. I should have thought that it was in accordance with the wish of the Committee that we should be perfectly frank about such a matter. The other point is that in a good many cases we have saved considerable sums by not proceeding with certain schemes for purchase or for building, and the obvious result is that we have still to find accommodation for the staffs of these Departments. The Committee will remember that the Department which I represent is only responsible for finding the actual housing for these Government staffs, with the policy of which we have nothing to do. Obviously, however, if we do not proceed with the policy of building at a particular place, and there is still a staff to be housed, we may have to rent premises, and in many cases to adapt them. Moreover, in the case of some of the buildings which we have held on long leases the leases have fallen in, and the
rents have been increased on renewal. With regard to the increases in the cost of light and fuel which have been quoted, I am afraid that every private individual will recognise that his bills for both light and fuel have in most cases gone up. In some of these cases, too, there has been a transfer of certain services from other Votes, and it may be—I cannot say offhand—that that transfer of services may have caused increases on this particular item.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we have some explanation of Item I, for £6,380 for Brompton Cemetery?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir; that is an item which appears for the first time on these Votes. The cemetery was purchased by the Government a good many years ago—I think in 1852—and for a considerable time it was carried on at a profit. The Treasury have now insisted that it should be on the Estimates, and that is the reason why it appears. It will be noticed that there is a counter-sum set off for Appropriations-in-Aid on that item.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £473,350, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."—[Note: £332,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir W. DAVISON: The Committee really ought to have some explanation with regard to the purchase of sites and the erection of new buildings for Employment Exchanges. I understood last year that the House obtained a very definite assurance that no new sites should be purchased and no new buildings erected for Employment Exchanges without full particulars and very definite reasons being given to the House. Since then we have had the Geddes Committee, which, to say the least of it, has not viewed with favour the extension of this Employment Exchange movement. I see that at Leeds £47,610 is put down for "Purchase of site and erection of new building for
Employment Exchange." We all know that we are frequently met, when we oppose such Estimates, with the statement that the site has already been bought and that £10,000 or £20,000 has been spent on the building, and it is said, "Surely you are not going to waste this expenditure by refusing us another £20,000 to complete." In this case we are right at the beginning. We are asked to vote money for the purchase of a site and erection of buildings, and I do suggest that in these times, when money is so scarce, and everyone is agreed that it is absolutely essential that taxation should be reduced, we should reduce our expenditure as far as possible, because, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London pointed out, you cannot reduce taxation until you reduce expenditure. Here is one matter upon which we certainly need not embark on further new expenditure. The next item is £10,930 for purchase of site and erection of huts for Employment Exchange at Leicester; and so it goes on. I think we ought to have some definite explanation with regard to these new buildings and to the purchase of sites for Employment Exchanges.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps it will be convenient that I should reply immediately on that point. Since last year the whole policy with regard to these Employment Exchanges and their buildings has been reviewed, and it is in accordance with the undertaking given by the Ministry of Labour that these schemes have been altered. If the hon. Member turns to the case of Leeds, he will find that the money now asked for is for the completion and erection of temporary buildings on the Cloth Hall site, which had been purchased for the erection of permanent buildings. This change of policy is in accordance with the pledge given by the Minister. It was found that no other suitable buildings wore obtainable for the adequate accommodation of the Exchange, nor any other suitable site for the erection of huts. At the present time the Exchange is housed in hired premises. The same applies to the schemes at Leicester. I can assure the Committee that the pledge given by the Ministry of Labour has been loyally carried out by the Office of Works.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: The Committee is indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation, but I am not sure that it goes far enough. This Vote seems to me to raise questions of policy upon which the House should be informed. Considerable changes have taken place since last year, and I think I am within the recollection of the Minister of Labour when I say that he has indicated that the system of Employment Exchanges may possibly at some future date come to an end altogether.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am not prejudicing that now.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prejudicing that, and if, indeed, it be the case that these Employment Exchanges will come to an end, whether it be next year or the year after, I suggest to the Committee that it is absurd that we should spend huge sums such as are included in these Estimates for the erection of Employment Exchanges which two years hence may not be required. I would therefore ask the Minister of Labour whether on this Vote he cannot give us a little clearer explanation than he has already afforded as to what the policy of the Government is with regard to these Employment Exchanges. If the Minister says he is unable to do so, T should propose to move——

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not say that.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then will the right hon. Gentleman, in that case, explain the matter to the Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, with pleasure.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I see that under Subhead C there is an item of £26,850 for furniture, and I notice that there is a demand for money for furniture on nearly every one of these Class I Votes. Why should we want to spend money on furniture for these buildings? Most of the articles are tables and chairs, which do not wear out very quickly. During the War many buildings were erected which had to be furnished, and surely there must be a large amount of furniture about somewhere which could be utilised for furnishing these offices, without coming to the House on every one of these Votes for these large sums. If the Committee will look through these Estimates, they will be
astonished to see the large expenditure that is involved under the heading of furniture alone. Just as my Noble Friend has drawn attention to the cost of fuel and light, which may be justifiable in some cases, while in others it may not, so I think that this constantly recurring item for furniture should be looked into by the Minister, to see whether it is really necessary that year by year we should spend more money, when there must be large quantities of furniture available from Departments which have been closed up owing to the cessation of the War.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I rise to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel Murray). We are asking, so far as buildings are concerned, for £146,000, which, as compared with the Estimates of last year, shows a decrease of £352,600. The decrease is not due to diminished need. The state of unemployment to-day is the best answer to that suggestion. It is due to the strict economy which has been exercised in the preparation of these Estimates. Take the Estimates in recent years for these Employment Exchange buildings. In 1919–20 the figure was £501,315; in 1920–21 it was £464,700; in 1921–22 it was £498,600, and this year it is £140,000. The Committee will remember that last year I gave an undertaking that I would lay no new brick without coming for previous sanction to the House. I have faithfully carried out that undertaking. The erection of permanent buildings is not here contemplated. No permanent buildings are involved in this. We shall no nothing to prejudice the future, and nothing here proposed will do so. In view of the need for economy, I determined to go into these proposals fully myself, personally, and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go down to the localities. I have been to a number in London, and he has gone to the various localities, in order that we might get down to a reasonable minimum of expenditure.
My general policy has been this, no permanent buildings. Where provision is needed to erect huts or hire some temporary buildings I appeal to local authorities, religious bodies, and others to lend me buildings, and I wish to express my gratitude to them because they have done so in a very large number of cases. I
may further state that the Provisional Estimate for this account, which I submitted to the Committee on National Expenditure for this year was £257,000. The Committee on National Expenditure said that it ought to be reduced by at least £50,000. I have reduced it by £111,000, so that I have gone beyond the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The increasing amount of unemployment, and the necessity in the poorer parts of the great cities to do all we can to see that people do not stand for hours outside waiting their turn, impose a very serious obligation upon us. My difficulties have been enormous to try to prevent great hardship, particularly in inclement weather and at the same time to do the best I can to make shift such as we have here with the result that I have got the Vote down by this large amount.
Taking the items, first of all there is £66,000 for works in progress in 13 cases. I have gone into each of them. They involve no unnecessary building, but they involve repair of temporary premises and the minimum of adaptation. I will answer any question on any one of those cases with which I am familiar. Then, under Proposed Works, there is one case in the Borough. We propose to put up huts. There are now nearly 15,000 people registered in the Borough. Let my hon. Friend go down there and see how difficult it is to get on there from day to day with the thousands of people passing through, and I am sure he would say that I am quite right to make that temporary provision of £11,000. Then there are works costing between £500 and £2,000 at Manchester and Norwich, both of a temporary character, for which there is £3,900. Then there are works not exceeding £500, for which there is £10,000. Then there is what looks like a considerable sum, £55,000 for urgent unforeseen work. In a great many cases we hold premises under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I am afraid that at any moment we may have to get out. I cannot leave these people without some arrangement, and therefore I make this provision. If I can hold on, I will, but I cannot leave a great industrial area without proper provision for people to come to Employment Exchanges and register and get their weekly payments.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to purchase these sites?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are not purchasing sites. This £146,000 will not purchase any sites. These sites have all been purchased, some of them long ago. Take the case at Leeds. There I have a site on which I am going to put up temporary buildings. Every penny here is for temporary purposes, or for absolutely necessary repairs, or absolutely necessary adaptations. I really think that I ought to have a special vote of thanks for what has been done in the way of economy.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The item "Furniture" shows an increase, because for the first time furniture required for new works, instead of being shown under new works, is shown as furniture. That practically accounts for the increase in this Vote, and with regard to what the hon. Member says as to the quality and extent of the furniture——

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not say that you should curtail the use of the furniture, but what I wanted to know was, why you should expend this money when you must have stacks of furniture stored away somewhere which has been used by the Government and could be used now?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Any furniture which we get back into storage is re-issued and used to the utmost extent.

Mr. WISE: On page 48 we have the extension of the Claims and Record Office, £267,750.

Dr. MACNAMARA: You are looking at the wrong column. The amount required is £5,000.

Mr. WISE: Yes, but this is an extension. I had an opportunity of going down to Kew the other day and seeing the place. This seems to me to be an enormous sum if it is only an extension.

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is completion. The Vote required is £5,000. We are completing this particular work and asking £5,000 for it.

Mr. WISE: You are building an immense new wing there. Who are the contractors?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say at the moment.

Lord E. PERCY: There are some items under proposed works which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to
explain. On page 50 it is shown that he is now erecting huts for an Employment Exchange in the borough at a cost of £11,000, while in Canning Town he is doing the same thing at a cost of £8,100. But in the Borough there was an expenditure of £5,425 last year to adapt premises for the Employment Exchange, so that this £11,000 must come under the head of another of those urgent and unforeseen things of which there are so many which this Government did not foresee. The Minister takes great credit to himself for putting up these temporary huts instead of doing anything more permanent. I know these huts. I have heard of them before. They were offered previously to the London County Council when we were trying to build working-class houses. I do not mean to say that it is a complete analogy, but I suppose that they are the same old Blackheath huts which have been hawked round by the War Office and the Disposal Board for years while they have not been able to find any local authority foolish enough to take them over. They have now come to the Minister of Labour and he will find it very much more expensive in the long run to take these Army huts and attempt to adapt them than it would have been possibly to spend another £5,000 on adaptation in the Borough. I do not believe that these so-called economies are any economies at all. I do not think that it is an economy to put up these temporary huts, and I think the whole of this Vote for further expenditure on these Employment Exchanges is utterly unjustifiable. No doubt the Minister will tell me that my views about Canning Town and the Borough are very ignorant, but I am fairly certain in this case, if in no other, that I am right, and that he will find out that he is letting himself in for a very large expenditure from which he will have no decent return to show when the present crisis is over.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I was urged last year not to spend money owing to the existing high cost of building, which would involve any charge upon the Treasury at the moment. Therefore you must do the best you can to make shift. I dare say, in the long run, the Noble Lord (Lord E. Percy) may be right. If the money were here and now available, and a crisis was not on, as it is, it might take a long series of years to build new promises. We cannot afford just now to
raise the money with the high cost of building. I am told that army huts are no good, and I am told that I am extravagant and wasteful in huts.

Lord E. PERCY: Take this £11,000. How much of that is the cost of the hut as it stands, and how much the cost of adaptation and erection?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I carry as many, figures as I can in my head, but I cannot answer that. To see the sort of place these men work in now, the difficulties of it, the hopeless condition of the place, and very nearly 15,000 people to deal with, I wonder they manage as well as they do. So far as erecting permanent buildings is concerned, it would be very expensive just now. It is difficult to please everybody. The Noble Lord talked about a sum of money last year for existing premises. I do not think that any money was spent last year.

Lord E. PERCY: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 50, in the last column, "Voted 1921–22," he will see what I mean.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My recollection is that we did not spend anything last year.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions. I should be glad, on one condition, to give him in advance a vote of thanks, as proof of his assiduity and economy, and the stringency of the reduction he has been able to make. He pointed to the fact that he was able to keep Scotland down to an item of £1,000. He has accomplished a task equal to that in difficulty, for he has been able to put Wales down nothing at all. Is that due to the fact that this Department is satisfied, in the case of Wales, that the standard of accommodation is lower than that in any other part of the country? I have had complaints in my constituency of men who have had to stand in queues of the unemployed waiting for their weekly benefit. I have not had an opportunity of verifying whether that is due to insufficient accommodation or not, but I should like an assurance to the effect that they do not accept a lower standard of building and repair and accommodation in Wales, as compared with other parts of the country. Is it a
fact that out of the whole of this Vote not a penny has been devoted to that purpose?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension with regard to Scotland, and I did not say that there was nothing for Wales. Under the heading, "Minor works not exceeding £500," there is an item, "England and Wales, £5,000," and Wales is also mentioned under the heading, "Urgent Unforeseen Works, £55,000." If he asks me whether the standard is going to be lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom, I cannot say it is. I would not say too much for the standard anywhere in regard to accommodation.

Viscount CURZ0N: I want to return to the Item regarding fuel, light, water, and household articles. This Vote provides for an expenditure of over £100,000. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot try some sort of system of rationing Government grants. There is a serious leakage in every single Vote, and I am not convinced by anything he has been able to say so far, that he has been able to do anything really effective towards making a stoppage. Could he give some particulars as to what he has been able to do? I think the Committee ought really to inquire very much more closely into it. Can he not give us some sort of scheme to cut this expenditure down? It is nearly £1,000,000 for fuel and light. Then there is the question of furniture. An hon. Gentleman put a point just now regarding the item for furniture. Has not the Disposal Board been trying to get rid of furniture for a long time past? Could the right hon. Gentleman not have got furniture from the Disposal Board? I am sure that is what my hon. Friend wanted to know. I should also like a further reply about the items for fuel and light.

Sir W. DAVISON: What has happened to the cart-loads of furniture that we have seen for the last few weeks going away from the huts in the parks and on the Embankment? Surely some of this furniture could have been transferred to the Employment Exchanges rather than that all this money should be spent?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: About a week ago we had a tremendous snow storm. People were in the snow in queues. There is no accommodation anywhere else.
Supposing there are a thousand persons going to draw money. Those people who want to get away early get the first places in the morning, and the other people have to wait in the bad weather. They catch cold, for many of them have worn-out clothes, and their shoes are in a bad condition. I have known of people who have died from pneumonia as a result of catching cold in queues. It seems to me that proper accommodation should be given.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can assure hon. Members that every effort is being made to utilise the furniture which comes out of these buildings. The furniture from St. James' Park is transferred to places like Acton, where the staffs are also being transferred. Furniture is being utilised as far as possible, and that which is not in good repair is repaired by the Department and re-issued. I can assure the Committee that every possible economy is being made. With regard to another question raised, it is quite obvious that in many cases, taking into account recent occurrences such as the coal stoppage, etc., the Department had to take a larger number of buildings, and that, of course, added additionally to fuel and light. The more we have of small buildings the more the expenditure conies under these heads, but every care is being taken in these matters.

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Motion made, and question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £144,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—[Note: £74,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir G. COLLINS: Several hon. Members have refrained from dividing the Committee in order that there may be an opportunity of discussing the Votes. On page 17 of the Estimates a sum of £23,240 is provided for the cost of Metropolitan Police in Hyde Park. That item gives me an opportunity of reviewing, once again, the question of women police in Hyde Park. I do not profess to be fully posted on the matter, but an hon. Member, if he is able to catch the Speaker's eye, will move a reduction on this Vote,
with a view to testing the opinion of the Committee as to the necessity of employing women in Hyde Park.

8.0 P.M.

Major BARNETT: On page 15 of the Estimates is an item of £3,000 for the provision of tennis courts on ground formerly occupied by the Royal Toxophilite Society in Regent's Park. I want to say a word about this society. I want to appeal as to whether something could not be done to preserve that royal and ancient society and find room for tennis courts elsewhere. We have had a war in which we have employed tin hats and other bullet-proof reversions to armour. The time may come when other methods of warfare may be employed, and we may have to go back to bows and arrows. My suggestion is that the Royal Toxophilite Society should be allowed to continue their useful and honourable functions. There is no reason why these people, who have occupied——

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure how this becomes relevant. Does the hon. Gentleman say the Office of Works objected to the Royal Toxophilite Society or put any hard measure upon them?

Major BARNETT: The Royal Toxophilite Society bitterly resents its ejection from this ground, and I am asking the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Office of Works whether there is not time for repentance, even now, before he creates these tennis courts at an expense of £3,000? I know there are thousands of people who play tennis for every one who indulges in archery, but as a rifleman I have the greatest possible respect for archery, which, after all, was one of the great accomplishments of the English in old times. It is a noble art, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give the Royal Toxophilite Society another chance and to put the tennis players elsewhere.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I am moving this reduction in order to call attention to the necessity for employing women police in Hyde Park. The saving mentioned on page 17 of the Estimates under the head of "Hyde Park, Estimated cost of Metropolitan Police" is just over £3,000. This saving I is going to be effected probably at the
cost of the dismissal of the women police who are at present acting as patrols in Hyde Park. These are trained, picked and efficient women. Their work is to warn girls, take their addresses, and then to threaten them with proceedings—if it comes to that. This is work that must be done in Hyde Park. Men can do it, but the women at present in the police force are better suited to it. They follow up their cases; they visit the women and the girls at home after they have been warned. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the male police; I only ask that their work should continue to be supplemented by that of the women police. The danger to the nation if this work is left undone will be very serious. The Home Secretary himself admits the importance of this supervision, and the benefit it is to the country, and he has suggested that volunteers should do the work. There is no guarantee that volunteers will undertake the work, and every social service backs up the expenditure of this money. Why run the risk which will follow the stopping of the work for the paltry saving of £3,000? If it is necessary to save this money, the reduction should be apportioned between the male and the female officers. Some part of the work of supervision should be left to women; some woman officer should always be in Hyde Park for girls to appeal to in case of need. I ask that a nucleus of women patrols should be left. There is no saving if this reduction is made at the expense of the mischief which may be done if the supervision by these women police is not maintained.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to what I consider to be very bureaucratic and Prussian action on the part of the powers that be with regard to Hyde Park. When the railway strike took place a big portion of the park was equipped as an immense garage. In the course of that work the grass was destroyed on a plot opposite to Knights-bridge Barracks. When they saw the damage, the Office of Works very rightly surrounded the whole of that track of land and sowed it, and when everything was going on perfectly right—somebody must have thought it was going too well—three football grounds were made upon it. This piece of ground was closed to the general public, and the Household
Brigade were allowed to play football upon it. Although not a soul in London was allowed the privilege of walking over this piece of ground, the soldiers of London were allowed to mess it up and "chaw" it up into a condition worse than it ever was before. The net result is that to-day, when the football season is over, this piece of land is again closed. If a piece of land is closed with the object of restoring it, it ought to be closed to everybody, and I maintain that the military have no overriding right in the park. If the soldiers had not played on it, it would have been all right for the public, but now it has been ruined, and once again it has to be closed. If the Office of Works is going to adopt a new policy of letting definite portions of Hyde Park for definite amusement, although they have up to now refused to allow golf in a remote corner of Richmond Park, surely we might have a racecourse in Hyde Park, just as they have in Paris, and we might reduce the rates of London by Sunday afternoon race meetings there. Hyde Park is for the public of London, and I protest against its being thought that the military have rights overriding those of the ordinary civilians.

Viscount CURZON: I wish to ask the hon. and gallant Member another question about Hyde Park, with reference to the flower beds which were done away with, in the interests of economy, three years ago. Those flower beds were a source of the greatest delight to people who seldom had a chance of seeing what a bed of flowers looks like, except in Hyde Park. I want to suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should consider seriously the possibility of getting these flower beds restored, by offering them by tender to private firms. I suggest they should be allowed to lay out those beds with flowers as a form of advertisement. When you go to flower shows you see little gardens of this sort nicely arranged. Some of them were to be seen at the Ideal Home Exhibition. They bore little tickets, about the size of a page of the OFFICIAL REPORT, saying the beds had been laid out by So-and-so. I only suggest this in the interests of economy, because, while I do not want the Crown to be put to any expense, I want the public to have the enjoyment of those flower beds again. I am sure they gave delight to a great many people. I well remember as a small boy myself going to see them, and I appre-
ciated them very much too. If the hon. and gallant Member cannot get them all restored to what they were before the War, at least cannot he get some of the beds planted again?
Then there is another subject, which comes a little nearer home. In the Royal Parks there is a Regulation forbidding people to learn to drive motor-cars. [Laughter.] I thought that might rouse a little amusement. Numbers of people have been hauled off to the Police Court and heavily fined because they were found to be learning to drive cars in Richmond Park. Is it really necessary to do this in the interests of the public? Is it not much better for everybody that they should learn to drive in a place like Richmond Park, which is fairly well deserted, rather than go on the road?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I really hope the Committee will let us have this Vote tonight. With regard to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) and the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), about the women police, that, of course, is not a matter with which my Department is directly concerned. There appears on our Vote a certain sum of money for police for the maintenance of order in Hyde Park, but the actual selection of the police who are employed there is in the hands of the Commissioner of Police. I am not unfriendly to the good work which the lady police have done, speaking personally, but this is a matter which is outside my province. With regard to the tennis courts, to which the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras (Major Barnett) referred, and the removal from Regent's Park of the Royal Toxophilite Society, like him I have great sympathy with archery, being myself a member of a very old body of archers, but I am convinced that the policy pursued in this case

is in the interests of the general public. The ground held by this society from the Office of Woods has now fallen in, and is handed over by the Office of Woods to this Department. We propose to place upon that ground a number of tennis courts open to the general public, and I believe they will give enjoyment to a much larger number of people living in the vicinity of the Park than would enjoy the continuance of the society there, however deserving its efforts may have been.

Let me say one word with regard to the football ground used by the troops opposite Knightsbridge Barracks. The ground has certainly been cut up, and, of course, it will be a question for consideration whether something will not have to be done to prevent that in the future. But I am loth to adopt any suggestion which would prevent the use of a portion of the park by the troops for this purpose, and I am the more encouraged in that view because I believe the general public have on many occasions watched with great interest the playing of football on this particular ground.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My whole point is that if troops are allowed to play football in the park the public should be allowed to walk over the ground. In walking over the ground they do not damage it as playing football does.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that is reasonable. I hope the Committee will now give me this Vote, because it is really urgent that we should get on at an early date with the operations in the interests of economy.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £144,700, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 100.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[8.16 p.m.


Banton, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hirst, G. H.


Barrand, A. R.
Finney, Samuel
Hogge, James Myles


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Holmes, J. Stanley


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Gillis, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kennedy, Thomas


Cairns, John
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Kenyon, Barnet


Cape, Thomas
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Mosley, Oswald


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hayday, Arthur
Myers, Thomas


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Royce, William Stapleton
Tillett, Benjamin


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Spencer, George A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, John Edward



Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Swan, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Mrs. Wintringham and Mr. Foot.


Rose, Frank H.




NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Parker, James


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Hailwood, Augustine
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Atkey, A. R.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hancock, John George
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Purchase, H. G.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Blane, T. A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E
Howard, Major S. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hudson, R. M.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seddon, J. A.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jameson, John Gordon
Simm, M. T.


Brown, Major O. C.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kidd, James
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Cope, Major William
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd 'n)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Dean, Commander P. T.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Edge, Captain Sir William
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wallace, J.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Evans, Ernest
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mason, Robert
Windsor, Viscount


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wise, Frederick


Forrest, Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert



Gilbert, James Daniel
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Dudley Ward.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Question put, and agreed to.

It being after a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

PENSIONS TO EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the reductions now being made in the pensions of ex-service men and dependants are unwarranted and are creating serious hardships, and that a Select Committee be appointed forthwith to inquire into the procedure and the grounds upon which these reductions are made and into the administration of pensions generally.
I make no apology for putting this Motion on the Paper. This is no party matter, and I have no political motive in bringing it to the attention of the House. I do not wish to make the ex-service man a stalking horse in view of a General Election. I was refused admission to
the Army on the outbreak of War, because of anno domini and because of avoirdupois. The greater part of my life since the War has been devoted to looking after the ex-service man and his dependants in the district in which I live. I want to make it clear at once that I make no personal charge against the Minister of Pensions. I have troubled him a good deal in the past year or two, and I have always had the greatest kindness and consideration from him. My Motion is directed to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into injustices and hardships and also into the methods of procedure adopted. No doubt I shall be told that a Select Committee, of which I was a member, sat in 1919 and 1920, and that a Departmental Committee has sat since and that therefore a further Select Committee is not necessary. I know no better method of proving anything in this House than by giving concrete instances typical of many hundreds or thousands of others, and I intend to prove by concrete in-
stances that there is something wrong with the pensions administration at the present time. Never in the history of this country has there been such dissatisfaction as there is at the moment. Never has there been greater cause for complaint. I notice with a great deal of anxiety that the pensions Estimates are to be reduced, and I am not alone in the fear that it is going to be at the expense of the pensioner and the dependant. I understand the Estimates are to be reduced by something like £20,000,000. If that is so, somebody is going to suffer very drastic reductions. I want to ask at once is it merely a coincidence that concerted action is being taken by medical boards and inquiry officers to reduce pensions all over the country? The fact is so notorious that I am entitled to ask the question, and I do not ask it in any offensive manner: Has some hint been given that economy must be extended in these directions? That is my first question.
The amounts of pensions are being reduced after the most casual and cursory examination by Medical Boards. Dependants' pensions are being reduced or ended altogether, without adequate inquiry, as I shall prove before I sit down. I shall be told there are safeguards and that ample opportunity for appeal is given. In theory and on paper that is quite true, but in practice it does not work out at all. It is true the man can appeal from the decision of the Medical Board to the Medical Appeal Board. There is great reluctance, however, on the part of the Medical Appeal Board to upset the decisions of the original Medical Board. It is even more difficult to get the Medical Appeal Board to upset the decision of the original Medical Board than it is to get the Court of Appeal to upset a decision of the King's Bench, and I know something about that, because I have been in the Court of Appeal myself. The Medical Boards are supposed to consist of three doctors, but cases are often decided—if my information be correct—not by three doctors, but sometimes by one doctor, and often by two. As to the Appeal Boards, a man is often overawed when he comes into the presence of a body like that, and he should be allowed to take a friend or a solicitor or his own doctor or somebody who could put his case better than he himself. I know a
man can do this at the Central Appeals Tribunal, but how often can he afford it? The men get their train fare and, I believe, 1s. 8d. for expenses, if they are away from home eight hours. They will not do very much damage with that. If they have to stop all night I think they get 5s. It may be said a good percentage of appeals succeed. Chiefly they succeed where the appellant has been able to afford a solicitor or has secured the services of some friend well acquainted with the administration of pensions, to put his case before that tribunal.
I hope to get the support of all parties in this Motion. I know others in this House are just as solicitous for the welfare of the ex-service man and his dependants as I am, and that applies to the Pensions Minister too. Whatever happens to this Motion, however, I hope in any further appeals before the Central Appeals Tribunal means will be found whereby the appellant shall have provided, not at his own expense, somebody who can put his case fairly and fully before the tribunal. I will be told that would encourage frivolous appeals, but at any rate it would ensure justice being done. Let me refer to the procedure adopted by the Medical Boards. They often reduce the standard of disability on the most unwarrantable grounds and a doctor is not always the best judge of the health of a man or his fitness for particular work. A favourite device now is to reduce the disability to, say, 20 per cent. for a limited period and then recommend that a lump sum, usually about £10, be paid in final settlement. That is a tempting little bait to men who have not had money for years, and they are apt in many cases not to disagree with that decision. Lately, I know this has been done in cases where no real improvement whatever can be shown in the man's condition. In most cases no consideration whatever is given to the nature of the man's employment. His disability may be only 20 per cent, in so far as buttoning his trousers is concerned, but it is very much more if one takes into consideration his employment—if, for instance, he is a watchmaker or a carpenter or something like that. In many cases a man may not have above 20 per cent, disability so far as walking about is concerned, but he suffers very much more than that when you take into consideration the trade he has to follow.
I know dozens of such cases and if challenged I can prove them.
There is another very subtle method—that of deciding that aggravation has passed. A man is discharged with a disability certified on his papers as being due to war service, and it is gradually reduced to a disability aggravated by war service. In course of time it is certified that the aggravation has entirely passed away, but the man's health is broken and many of us know cases, where the man, in such circumstances, is in just as bad a condition and just as unfit for employment as when he left the Army with a certificate of disability due to war service. He is a human derelict. There are thousands of them in the country to-day and this is within the knowledge of many hon. Members of this House. Sir Frederick Milner—than whom I know no one who has done more for the ex-service men—has given lately some very startling cases to which I am going to refer later, and he ends up by saying as regards the administration of pensions:
I am thoroughly ashamed of my country.
Just a word as to the dependants and the methods adopted of inquiring into their cases. Thousands of these have had their pensions reduced without adequate inquiry and sometimes without any inquiry at all. The form for claiming dependants' pensions—"M.P.D.P. 1"—was an alarming document. I know it is no use any longer, because it expired on the 31st March. There were about 60 questions on it, and it would require an accountant or a lawyer to fill up all the answers to these questions and not an ordinary individual. As a consequence, many who intended to apply for dependants' pensions gave it up in despair after seeing one of these forms. I know it will be said that they can get assistance at the Pensions Office, but many of them live miles away from the Pensions Office and have to send by post to the Pensions Office for one of these forms. If this is a queer document, however, the inquiry officer's form is worse still. It is the most inquisitorial document I have ever seen in my life. There are eight pages of foolscap full of questions, every one of which has to be answered. I have had the opportunity during the past few days of looking at
the confidential book issued to inquiry officers. I know I ought not to have seen it, but I am rather inquisitive, and so I got to see it. I have nothing much to say about it, except this—anybody who can fulfil the conditions laid down in that book and get a pension is a very lucky individual.
I submit that one of the greatest calamities to the pensioner is—or, rather, has been, because the pension committees have largely ceased to function—the destruction of the pension committees in the districts. I daresay I shall be told that the time for their demise is not until 15th April, but they are under sentence of death, and when people are under sentence of death they are thinking about the next world and not so much about this one; at any rate, they are not functioning. I know in my own county there are two instead of quite a dozen, and as a consequence many of these pensioners' dependants are living 10, 12, and more miles from the two pension offices that are left. Sometimes you get some inquiry by one of the officials, sometimes pensions are altered without any inquiry at all, but by the abolition of these committees the human and personal touch is altogether destroyed, and let me say again that pension committees are far better judges than are doctors in many cases as to the fitness of a man for his employment and as to dependants' circumstances. We were promised by the Pensions Minister in 1919—I was a Member of that Committee and heard it said, and I have the Minister's evidence here—that pensions committees were doing good work and that they should be strengthened and not abolished. We know the pension committees were largely abolished by the Act of last year. I want to say this—and I am saying it after giving full weight to the responsibility that I have in this matter—that the hardships being suffered, the injustices now being perpetrated, both to ex-service men and to their dependants, are greater than ever before in the history of this country.
This is not a Departmental matter; it is a national matter. We must remember what we said to these men when they joined up. I spoke on more than 300 platforms and promised them a good deal, and many things were said in this House, although I was not here then, and outside to the effect that these men should never suffer, and surely it is not
too much to ask for this Select Committee, and that it should be left also to the free vote of the House. A few days ago the Leader of the House said the men's organisations were perfectly satisfied. I do not know where he gets his information from, for if the organisations are satisfied, as represented by their officials, the men themselves are certainly not satisfied, and since I put this Motion down, a fortnight ago, I have had hundreds of letters from all over the country, all expressing one feeling, and fact, I believe, namely, that never in the history of the country have pensioners suffered as they are suffering to-day.
Let me give one or two concrete instances, and I will take Sir Frederick Milner first of all. According to him, there is a man who was in a good position in the Post Office. He left and volunteered to fight for his country, but the severity of service and exposure proved too much for him, and he was discharged with severe rheumatism. The Post Office people found him an indoor berth. In June, 1917, this unfortunate man, who had already been discharged for rheumatism, was actually conscripted and, in spite of his protests, forced again to join, with the natural consequence that in March, 1918, he had to be discharged again, infinitely worse than he was before, and unable this time to take any work. Yet the Ministry asserted, and the tribunal confirmed, that his condition was only aggravated by service, and that the aggravation had passed away, though at the time he was a helpless cripple, unable even to get in or out of bed without assistance, or move without crutches. Sir Frederick Milner justly asks, "What justification can there be for such a decision?" Let me give another case, of a man who, to begin with, was poisoned by vaccination, and then had severe gastritis. He went to France, got a gunshot wound near an ear, and was afterwards badly gassed. This naturally greatly aggravated the other troubles, and he was discharged permanently unfit. The verdict of the first board was disability due to service, gastritis, and effects of being gassed, and they allowed full disability pension. The next board recognised the disability and gastritis, but omitted mention of gas, and that is the subtle method by which they proceed. The pension was reduced to 50
per cent., though the man's condition had in no way improved. The next board reduced the pension to 30 per cent. and took no notice of the medical sheet or of the diagnosis of the sufferer's ration and gas poisoning, and assumed his condition was probably due to defective teeth. Then he got down to 20 per cent. Subsequently aggravation was said to have passed away, and the pension was stopped, though the man is now suffering from tuberculosis, the effect of gas poisoning, and there again the tribunal supports the Pensions Ministry—a crying scandal. Those are two cases mentioned by him.
I will mention some cases with which I am personally acquainted, and I have supplied the Minister with a list of some of the cases that I intend to mention. I hope the names will not be put in the papers. My first is that of a man from Stony Middlcton, B—, who was receiving full treatment allowance up to November, 1921. I know the man well. Prior to his joining the Army he was one of the strongest men in the whole district, working at some engineering works in Sheffield. He was advised by the doctor at regional headquarters, whilst getting full treatment allowance—that is, full pension and allowances—to apply for pension under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant. His disability was then assessed at 50 per cent., although there was not the slightest improvement in his health, and there is none to-day. Treatment and allowances were immediately stopped, the man gets half what he got before, but he is quite unable to work. He has a wife and family depending entirely on him. What is going to happen next, if the precedent is followed that is followed in other cases? He will be told that the aggravation has passed away, and the pension will be stopped, as it is being stopped in many other cases, and, as I said before, he was one of the strongest men in the district before he joined the Army.
Let me refer now to a case in which the pension officer himself has, by his action, proved that the medical boards were wrong, and that is the case of R—,who served four and a half years overseas. He was one of my next-door neighbours. His discharging disability was "Effects of gas." He was discharged on the 24th June, 1919, his out-treatment was
almost continuous to the 27th May, 1921, and he was then admitted to the Cannock Chase Military Hospital, with his discharging disability the effects of gas. While in hospital—and this is where these subtle means are adopted—he was advised to apply for pension under Article 9 for nephritis. I am not a medical man, but I understand that nephritis is a sort of sequelæ of gas poisoning. The man was practically dying when he was examined by the medical board which advised him to apply for a pension for nephritis, and I have seen his papers, so that I know what I am saying. His disability for nephritis, for which he had been advised to apply for a pension, was assessed at 100 per cent., but what happened? It was found that the disability was not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The man died in a very short time after he had been told that, and I know that the agony of body, as well as of mind, of that man was terrible, because he thought when he was dying even that he was leaving a wife and two children to the mercy of the world, and when the man died the pension was refused to the widow. I took the matter up myself with the Pensions Minister, and he himself decided this. I have his letter here. It had been decided in the hospital that the nephritis was not due to or aggravated by military service, and therefore she could not get a pension. She appealed to the Pensions Tribunal, where I promised to go with her to fight her case, but it never went there, because it was brought by me to the notice of the Pensions Minister, who said:
It has now been decided that the disease of which this soldier died was aggravated by military service, and that there is a continuous medical history of it from the termination of R.'s service with the colours.
And yet in that Cannock Chase Hospital—and I have seen the papers—it is said that the complaint from which he died was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): She has been given a pension.

Mr. WHITE: I am coming to that. I want to ask, What would have happened if she had not had a friend in this House, and I want to know, why did the right hon. Gentleman overrule the verdict given
by the medical board at that hospital, unless he knew that they were wrong? I agree he gave the pension, but if it had not been fought in the manner it was, the probability is that to-day this woman would be having no pension for herself or her children. Let me give another case that happened before the Pensions Minister took up office. This is the case of F. He joined the Army, and was sent to work in a ganister mine, ganister being used in munitions. He was killed. Although the wife had been receiving separation allowance while he was working in the mine, and although she received it for 26 weeks after he left the mine, the Pensions Ministry say that his death was not due to military service, but was brought about by his own negligence. I took the matter up. An inquest was held, and I have the coroner's certificate on the seat beside me. Eventually, after 2½ years, during which the widow had to depend on the charity of friends and societies, she was enabled to get her pension. This was taken up by two other hon. Members besides myself, although I believe I was the most pertinacious. The woman got a pension at last for herself and her seven children, but it was only because of the pertinacity with which the case was fought in this House. It was one of the first cases I took up when I got here, and I make bold to say she would never have got a penny but for the way in which it was fought. I can produce all the correspondence in which she was absolutely refused a pension on these grounds.
Let me come nearer home to another case. Again, this is a man with whom I am acquainted, and I got into some trouble with the Pensions Minister for writing a very nasty letter to the medical officer who treated him like this. It is the case of T—. He was being treated at home for bronchitis and rheumatism up to the 5th November, 1921. He had to go to Derby once in three weeks to attend the infirmary. One day he could not go, as pneumonia supervened on top of bronchitis and rheumatism, and so his wife, who wanted to be thoroughly straight, sent a letter to the Pensions Office at Derby, which is 16 miles away, saying he could not come, as he was ill in bed with pneumonia. Immediately, the full treatment allowance was stopped, because' bronchitis and rheumatism, for
which he was receiving allowance, did not appear on the certificate which was sent. I know there has been an explanation given since, and I hope I shall have an opportunity of replying, or getting somebody else to reply, if the same sort of answer is given to-night as was sent to me. What happened to that man? Two days after the first certificate was sent, another certificate was sent to the Pension Office at Matlock by the same doctor, stating that not only was the man suffering from pneumonia, but also from bronchitis and rheumatism, for which he was getting his treatment and treatment allowance. Although that was only two days after, the man during the whole month he was ill did not receive a penny for treatment allowance, and has never received a penny up to this day on that account. At this moment the man is dangerously ill. That is the position of a man who was not allowed to receive his treatment allowance because of a technical mistake in making out a certificate.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this man is now drawing 60 per cent.?

Mr. WHITE: I am aware that he was examined after that, and has had a pension allotted to him of 60 per cent. I am also aware that he is receiving treatment at the present time in a hospital or sanatorium, and that he is suffering from tuberculosis. Let me refer to another case. This is a matter for which I do not think the Pension Office can be blamed, but it is surely a matter that ought to receive consideration. Here is a woman who has a son. We called him a hero. He was 16 years of age when he enlisted as 18. He was wounded in the War, suffers from shell-shock, and is now in an asylum. His mother is a widow. He would have been her sole support. The poor woman has had to sell her home I know that 40s. a week pension is being awarded to her, but how is it divided? The cost of the son's maintenance in the asylum is said to be 37s. 9d. per week, and the remaining 2s. 3d. is paid to the widowed mother. Her son is gone, her home is gone, and 2s. 3d. is all that the poor widow has got on which to depend.

Mr. MACPHERSON: She is a mother, not a widow.

Mr. WHITE: I have said so. I know her perfectly well, and she has had to go out to service.

Mr. MACPHERSON: As I cannot deal with individual cases afterwards, I must deal with this now. The fact was, my hon. Friend wrote in February on behalf of this case. At that time the accumulated balance of the allowances amounted to £3, which amount was paid to the mother.

Mr. WHITE: I agree that, after I had taken the case up, it was paid to her. But what I was complaining about was that this woman had to take 2s. 3d. a week out of £2 for her only son, who would have been her sole support, had he not gone into the Army and been wounded. Let me refer to another case, that of Mrs. D—, which I have brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice more than once. She had two sons in the Army, both of whom wore killed. Up to last February she was receiving a pension of 6s. for the two boys. This has now been reduced to 5s. 5d. on the ground that she is not in need. I know the ease perfectly well, and why it has been found she is not in need I do not know, because no inquiry has been made of her personally for the past twelve months. I have been to see her, although it necessitated going 25 miles. Her own only income is a few shillings which she gets from her son who has to work away from home, and her half-brother, who lodges with her, and has been out of work the whole winter. Whatever the information of the right hon. Gentleman may be I know that the woman is practically starving, and yet she has had her pension reduced even during the past few weeks, and no personal inquiry has been made as to her position at the present time.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will not interrupt again, but my information is that she has now 30s. a week.

Mr. WHITE: Your information, with all respect, is entirely wrong, because the man who lives there, her half-brother, does not get 30s. when he is in work, and he has been out of work for nearly three months. The son who is away gets very little and he is living at Mansfield. She has never had a single inquiry as to her circumstances for the past twelve months. I am prepared to bear that out in evidence, and to show the right hon.
Gentleman the letters. Here is another case—I am only proving my point by concrete and not by isolated cases, because I want to bring home to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the injustices that are being perpetrated—here is a schoolmaster, an old man who had to give up work years before he died. Mrs. M—, the widow, had a crippled son, Sergeant M—. She was receiving 18s. per week in respect of him and her only other income was 10s. per week. She has a crippled son, an adult, unable to do anything whatever, and the pension is suddenly reduced to 9s. per week without any inquiry whatever. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman, when I brought this to his notice, restored the pension altogether, but there is something wrong about the matter when we have to come to the Pensions Minister to undo what has been done by somebody else. If Mrs. M—had not had a Member in Parliament—although she is opposed to me in politics, and will vote against me at the next election—if she had not had a Member in Parliament to look after her interests I am perfectly certain she would not have had her money restored. Why it was reduced Heaven only knows!
I have only one more case, on which I spend a good deal of Sunday—a poor woman of 60 with an affection of the throat. Her son was killed in the War. Her husband, a policeman, died during the War. She is receiving 10s. a week pension in respect of him. While her son was in the Army she received 15s. a week. She has an occasional lodger, true, and she lives in the house where she and her husband lived, and for which she pays £21 a year. Her pension up to a few weeks ago was 12s. 6d., and after no really adequate inquiry, except by a young man in the Pensions Office, who has never seen a moment's military service, the pension was reduced. This young man inquired of her: "Are you going to be married again?" Married again! A woman of her age, with an affection of the throat! The young man also said in making these inquiries: "I am here to protect the Government, and to look after them." Her pension has been reduced from 12s. 6d. to 6s. a week. She has had to go to the infirmary once, and sometimes
twice a week, she is so bad in health. The doctors are afraid of operating on her in view of her throat. I want to ask, having given the concrete instances—and I could give many others if required—I have the case of one man here who has been in eight hospitals and has had his pension reduced 20 per cent., with the payment of £10 gratuity at the end, a man who fought right through the War, lost his employment during the War, and is a cripple. To-day, I understand, he is appealing to the Medical Appeal Board.
These cases are only typical cases of those known to the majority of Members of this House. I could tell the case of a man ordered to go into the hospital for an operation, and whilst he was there the treatment allowance, and pension, and everything else was stopped, and for a few months after he had simply to live the best way he could; everything having been stopped. In view of all this—and I have given instances which I could prove and which I shall be glad some time to give further facts, for I know the rules of the House prevent me replying tonight—I shall be glad to hear the Pensions Minister's explanation. I want to ask if it is too much to press that a further Committee should be appointed to examine into all these matters. Former Committees have done splendidly. It is not a matter for the Pensions Minister alone or for his Department. It is a matter in which we all now share responsibility. Nobody knows—if a Member of Parliament does his duty—nobody knows the condition of these men as does a Member of Parliament. Let me say again, I believe the Members of all parties are just as solicitous for the welfare of the ex-soldier and his dependants as I am myself. If this goes to a Division, and I hope it will, I trust it will be left to the free Vote of the House. If it is so left, I am perfectly certain the Vote will be in favour of giving further consideration as to whether these injustices should not be discontinued and these anomalies brought to an end.

9.0. P.M.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Motion. I want to say at the outset that I very much regret that the necessity should arise to-day for such a Resolution to be moved. If possible, I want to approach this question with a desire to contribute some helpful criticism. In view of the
many cases which are being continually brought to our notice, and particularly what the hon. Member has already said, it is difficult to restrain one's feelings. I fully appreciate the fact that a great deal has already been done through the great pensions machine to help those who were broken during the progress of the War. I am quite ready, willing, and anxious to pay my tribute to the Pensions Minister and his associates for the ready and sympathetic way in which they are always meeting Members who have difficult cases to bring before them, and I must say quite frankly I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman and those, acting with him for the cordial assistance which they have always been ready to place at our disposal.
While ready to say that, however, the constant appeals made to Members and the terrible, pathetic nature of all sorts of cases show that in some measure, and I believe, in a large measure, there has been some breakdown in the administrative machine. That all is not well, so far as the Department of the right hon. Gentleman goes, is not only demonstrated by the post-bag of Members of this House, but from facts gathered in support of the contention put forward by the organisation known as the British Legion. I am constantly brought into contact with the local officials of the British Legion. I have addressed meetings which have been arranged under its auspices or the auspices of the organisation which preceded it, for the purpose of protesting against the inadequacy of the treatment meted out. Only as recently as last week one branch, situated in the Midlands, said that weekly they dealt with 230 interviews, a good many, at all events a big proportion, being associated with difficult cases where they have failed to secure satisfaction from the Minister. If everything were right so far as the administration of pensions goes, it does not seem to me possible that the British Legion should be called upon to deal with an average from one branch alone of 230 cases. I from inquiry that many cases which are reporting themselves constantly to the officers of this organisation rightly come within the category of what may be called frivolous cases, but I do know from personal inquiries that many of the cases are associated with hardship, privation and misery, and there has been every justifica-
tion for the British Legion acting in the way they have done.
I want to give some further support to the contention that there is need for a further independent inquiry to be set on foot by the Select Committee which has been suggested. I have gathered some further evidence from a little journal published by one of His Majesty's chief Ministers who states in this publication that since 13th January he has dealt with 80 fresh cases coming from his own constituency. He also says that he has secured an ex-official of the Ministry of Pensions to help him to deal with these cases. There, again, is an instance proving that the pensions administration must be breaking down in some particulars so far as that particular district is concerned. I would like to ask the Minister of Pensions why is it necessary for one of His Majesty's Ministers to secure an ex-official of the Pensions Ministry to help him to get justice done in these cases, and who is able to probe them deeply and secure satisfaction? Why has the right hon. Gentleman allowed this official to depart from the Ministry of Pensions when he might have rendered more useful service in the Ministry? [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is the Minister?"] The Minister concerned is one of the Government's Chief Whips, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy).
The right hon. Gentleman says in the same article that ho has been dealing with one case for 2½ years, and he gives the dates on which he brought the case before the Minister, the number of letters which have passed between them, and at the end of 2½ years he says he was able to get satisfaction for this man, and secure a lump sum in settlement of his claim. Instead of permitting the administration of the Ministry of Pensions to get into such chaos and disorder that we are compelled to take up these cases; instead of a Minister being obliged to employ an ex-official to boast of what he has performed, why is it that these cases cannot be dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions, and why cannot assistance be given straight away and all this superabundance of work saved on the part of hon. Members of this House?
When I have been travelling up and down the country I have been shocked to see a poster which has been placed on all
sorts of moving vehicles and hoardings with the words: "The scandal of Army pensions." [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that 'John Bull'?"] Yes, it is, but the article which warrants that headline is the one to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire has referred, and I claim that there is some answer essential for the sake of the good name of the constituencies of this country, and in view of the sacred promises we made during the War, the obligations which we undertook when these men were fighting that the rest of us might live. Some answer is required from the right hon. Gentleman to this allegation which is being scattered broadcast up and down the country, and which is certainly being paid some heed to by the people we meet from time to time.
This is a question upon which I feel very keenly, and I hope I shall be pardoned if I venture to take up a little more of the time of the House. When we were having a Debate here not many days ago, an hon. and gallant Member opposite criticised the machinery of the Appeals Tribunal. I know I am not permitted on this Motion to discuss the constitution or work of that body, but certain statements were made then which have a close alliance to the work of the Pensions Ministry. It has been stated from time to time that there are a number of cases which fail to succeed through lack of material medical evidence being available. It seems to me that that was a very definite statement made during the progress of the last Debate which took place in this Chamber, and I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that no case ought to be permitted to break down because there is a lack of material medical evidence.
I remember the same hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that it was very difficult, and increasingly difficult, to prove the genesis of medical disability. I do not think that statement can be substantiated in the light of the cases which have already been quoted and which are within the knowledge of every hon. Member of this House as to the cases which have been brought to his own personal attention. I do not think for a moment that a soldier deserving of a pension should be denied his right because there is a missing link in the chain of material medical evidence. I shall be surprised if the
Minister of Pensions supports that contention by saying that he is compelled to act in accordance with that suggestion. I want to put it broadly that to me it is all sufficient that a man went in good physical condition to fight for his country, he has ruined his constitution and undermined his health and is unable to take his position in civil life. To me that is the dominating factor, and the missing link of medical evidence ought not to have any effect in giving full consideration to such a case. I could give case after case of this kind brought to my own notice, but in view of the fact that other Members want to speak it would be unwise on my part to go further into details.
I will now come to the particular instances I wish to put to the Minister of Pensions and make some suggestions. I would like to ask whether it is correct to state that because no record was kept of a man's disability while on service, or because no trace of such record can be found, then the board or the tribunal is bound to turn down that man's case. That is a definite question to which I should like some specific answer from the right hon. Gentleman. If such is the ease, surely it was never the intention of the right hon. Gentleman himself, or of his predecessors, or of those responsible for the framing of the pensions' regulations. It would be manifestly unfair to have a regulation which compelled the Minister to refuse a pension and which should also operate with the Appeals Tribunal in further dealing with the case. That such system operates is demonstrated by the number of cases continually brought to our notice, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to disabuse our minds of the misapprehensions we are under, and enable us to more clearly understand what is the machinery operating in these particular cases. I am strongly of the opinion it would be extremely unwise to do anything which would interfere with the work of the Appeals Tribunal, and I think it would be a disastrous step to attempt to interfere with the machinery which is establishing a creditable form of final appeal. While I have no wish to do that, I want to do everything possible to prevent such a large number of cases leaving the Department of the right hon. Gentleman in the unsatisfactory form in which they do to-day, and then go to the Appeals Tribunal, inducing in the appellant false
hopes and anticipations, and putting everyone concerned in a position of extreme difficulty.
I want to make one or two suggestions as to the grounds for setting up a Select Committee. My first point is that the full disability pension of 40s. a week includes a 20 per cent. allowance to meet certain conditions so far as the increased cost of living is concerned. 1923 is, I believe, the date at which this particular Clause or Regulation will cease to be operative, and the case will then be open for review in the light of the circumstances that then obtain. We know that the trend of the times is in the direction everywhere of bringing down the standard of life, because there has been a certain reduction in the cost of living figures as indicated by the Board of Trade. We are fearful that, unless provision is made and steps taken, in the year 1923 the position which these men enjoy to-day in the security of a pension given them for disability will be prejudicially affected, and that they will suffer a considerable reduction of pension on the ground that the cost of living has fallen a certain number of points. I think every reasonably-minded man will agree that 40s. a week given as compensation for complete disability is not too much, and we ought to ask that it be secured for all time to these men who sacrificed so much during the War and who are now suffering so much in their present life. That ground alone should be sufficient to influence the Minister in setting up this Select Committee.
The next item that should come under review is the widow's pension. The claim of the man has been established and recognised, and we would like to see the same recognition and stability given to the claim of the widow as is conceded in the case of the man. Then there is the all-important question of the orphan—one of the most important branches of the work of the Ministry. Adequate provision does not appear to have been made, so far as the orphan children of service men go, and I should like to see some reasonable latitude exercised in regard to treatment of these orphan children. There is every reason why further administrative machinery should be created for the necessary protection of the children who are compelled to live in institutions or schools. It does not seem to
me there has been sufficient notice taken of that side of the question, and that the safeguards have not been set up which are essential to an important phase of the national life of the country, bearing in mind what a valuable asset these children will be when they have grown up fully trained citizens of the State. Then there is the question of the dependents of ex-service men. The existing scale of pensions payable to the parents of deceased sailors and soldiers is surely inadequate. I think a strong plea may be put up for the right hon. Gentleman to appoint the Select Committee, and to enable it to inquire into this particular stage of the subject, especially in view of the fact that many of the recipients of these inadequate allowances are compelled from one cause or another to have recourse to the Poor Law. They were willing to give their sons for the protection of the country, and surely the least we can do is to save them the disgrace and ignomony of having to appeal to the Poor Law for assistance.
Then there is the question of delay. There is too much irritating delay at present, and a Select Committee of impartial men would probably be able to probe into some of the causes of the delay which follows on an application for a pension I particularly want to press that point home to the right hon. Gentleman. Lastly, I would suggest the need for doing away with the irritating and exasperating repeated medical boards. There is too much time and money wasted on the continuance of these medical boards. They are costly to the State. It is very expensive to have these repeated examinations, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he can do nothing else, will at least save the men the agony which they must suffer from the knowledge that at some not far distant period they are likely to be called up again for examination. They should be relieved of this mental strain. If there must be a re-examination, let it be at long dated intervals, and not of frequent recurrence as it is to-day.
I want, in conclusion, to make three suggestions for the removal of some of the anomalies which at present surround pensions administration. None of us desire to see those anomalies continued, and the Pensions Minister and his colleagues least of all desire that. I
believe it is possible to abolish them. First we must get back to one of the first principles we have fought for but failed so far to secure. It is that when a man was passed fit for service, and we accepted his services and then he returned to civil life unable to earn his livelihood that man should be regarded as entitled to a pension. If that principle is not established, then we are bound to have these recurring anomalies. The only alternative to that proposal is continued appeals for Poor Law assistance in addition to pension rights. It was said in relation to the Balaclava heroes that in future a man who fought for his country should not be compelled to walk over the hill to the Poor House. I hope that that state of affairs is no longer to continue, and that that stain will be removed from the nation. I suggest that a man's title to a pension should be accepted as proved if a medical man certifies that he had not, before enlistment, been attended for any serious or permanent disability. It seems to me that if a strong physical man is called up for service and comes back broken, the independent testimony of his own medical man should entitle him to a pension. That would do away with much of the hardships imposed on ex-service men to-day.
My third point is that the onus of proof—and I hope the Minister will take particular notice of this—of entitlement to pension ought not to be placed on the man. To me it is an abuse of justice to ask an ex-service man to attempt to prove his own case in the way in which it is being done to-day. The State ought conclusively to prove that there is no obligation on its part to pay the pension to the man. To me there is the whole difference in the State proving that it is not under an obligation to pay the pension and the opposite course which is now being pursued of compelling the man to prove his own case. The former procedure does far more justice to the individual. The present method puts him in an invidious position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give these suggestions the consideration I feel they deserve and which we feel we are justified in asking Members, particularly those who served with the Forces, to join with us in asking with every confidence the right hon. Gentleman to consider and adopt.
I am sure I am re-echoing the wish of every section in this House when I say that no one, however keen may be his desire for economy, is going to attempt to persuade himself that we desire to see economy effected at the expense of the ex-service man. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give these suggestions sympathetic consideration, and I hope he will make the concessions asked for.

Captain BOWYER: There is no Member in the House who can have failed to be impressed by the speech to which we have just listened. One thing is quite obvious; that the hon. Member has given deep deliberation to this subject, while we all appreciated the conviction with which he spoke. The more any Member of the House considers this difficult question, the more I am certain he is bound to see all the difficulties that any solution of it must entail. That there must be hard cases is obvious from the fact that there are, I think, well over 3,000,000 people in this country who are receiving pensions. Further, I suppose no administration, however perfect, could hope to cope with that number of cases and appeals, and in no case to make a mistake. What, I think, we are all addressing our minds to to-night is, surely, whether or not the situation is so grave as to call for the setting up of another Select Committee. There has been one Select Committee, also a Departmental Committee, and now we are to have another Select Committee.
I would first try to show the House what I think is wrong. There is no doubt that there is a lack of generosity in dealing with these pension cases. More especially would I draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions to those cases where it is held that the man's injury or illness is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Very often the situation is that the man himself made no complaint and saw no doctor for a considerable period after he was demobilised, and for that reason there is at once a gap in his medical history sheet. I have had many cases myself where that very gap which arises in his medical history has been the one thing which so far as I can gather has persuaded the medical board to hold that his disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by his service. As to the condition of a man when he joined up, I
personally do not go all the way with the hon. Member who spoke last. I do not think you can say that if a man when he joined up was A 1 and to-day has some disability and has served in the meanwhile that necessarily what he is suffering from to-day must be attributable to or aggravated by military service. That is what I gather to be the case presented by my hon. Friend. That, surely, is not to be maintained, because many times for some months after a man's demobilisation there has occurred a period during which he may have become afflicted by the disease or illness from which he is now suffering. Again, during the War his occupation may in many cases have been so normal as not to have given rise to the possibility of any disability arising out of that War service. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as well as other Members, can think of such situations. The man's work may have been in an office in a town in this country where he had the same climate and conditions of life which he would have had had he never served at all.
The only point I want to make to-night is as to whether the House of Commons is being as generous to these men, a large proportion of whom went out and risked their lives, as the circumstances warranted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] There are many opinions, but I personally am not satisfied, although I do not want to set up a Select Committee until I have heard what reply the Minister of Pensions is going to make. I also think it would be in the nature of a, slight both to the Select Committee and to the Departmental Committee which so recently have considered this case. I think I am right in saying that the Departmental Committee suggested 160 odd reforms and that out of those 116 have already been put into effect by the Minister. If, now, a further Select Committee were to be appointed it would be in the nature of a slight on that Committee. After all, the only important thing is whether the ex-service men and dependants are to-day receiving the treatment they ought to receive.
The one thing that is all right at the present time is the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. That tribunal, where a medical man, a lawyer, and an ex-soldier sit together and hear the cases, independent as they are of the Ministry of Pensions, is to my mind the best sort of tribunal
that could possibly adjudicate in these cases. I do not know how many Members of Parliament have themselves been before these tribunals and seen the case going on. I am sure of this, that if any Member has taken the trouble to go, the first thing he will come away with is the impression that there is that Court standing between the man and an injustice. Of course, that does not alter the fact that there have been cases that have come before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal where sufficient medical evidence has not been forthcoming, or there have been cases where the man's précis has not been in his possession. These are cases where, I do submit, the Minister or the House of Commons ought to devise rules for setting up a re-hearing even after a case has been before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I know the Attorney-General, in the answer he gave the other night, did say that sympathetic consideration was going to be given. I have tried to show that there is a lack of generosity in the way in which the pensions of these ex-service men and dependants are being cut down. I do not want to give any specific cases, but I have in mind one case which I am afraid represents a type of cases that is occurring, that is to say, the case in which a man goes before a Medical Board, and they ask him such questions as, "What are you earning?" Although the Minister has given pledges that this shall not be done, I am quite convinced, from the most careful inquiries, that I have made, that sometimes, when the Board hear that the man is making a living—having, perhaps, had some training—they cut down his pension so that what he is earning by his work may supplement what he has a right to get in view of his wounds. I think that that is an improper action on the part of the Medical Board, and I know that the Minister agrees with me.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can you give me a case?

Captain BOWYER: I have given the Minister a case, and the only reply I got from him was that he did agree with me, but that on that occasion nothing could be done, and that is why I am mentioning the matter to-day. The case to which I have been alluding is that of Mr. F. R. Adams, of Weston Underwood, whom I have known all my life and who lives I next door to me, and the Minister can
refer to it. I was not going to mention the case, because I had not given the Minister notice that I was going to ask about it to-night. We do not necessarily want another Select Committee, but we do want to remember that the men with whom we are dealing are not the men who stayed behind and got any sort of material good out of the War. They are the men who went and served their country. It seems almost ludicrous that I should be standing here reminding hon. Members that that is the case, but if one goes about and has these cases brought to one's notice, it is perfectly clear that there is grave dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men on this matter. It is also perfectly true that no one wants to make this a party question. If the Minister does not want to have a Select Committee, I do beg that he will address his mind to the question how these complaints which are brought before him can be obviated. I do not forget that there are over 3,000,000 pension cases, and I am not expecting any administration which deals with such a large number of cases to be perfect, but I do expect that at least the speeches that have been made here to-night will be given serious consideration and that we shall get an acknowledgment from the Minister that he will yet again and again look into the administration of pensions, in order to satisfy himself constantly that all is well.

Captain LOSEBY: I have given notice of an Amendment to leave out the words
the reductions now being made in the pensions of ex-service men and dependants are unwarranted and are creating serious hardships—
and to insert thereof the words
the anxiety of the Ministry of Pensions to effect economies has led to results which were not anticipated, notably an increase in bureaucratic methods, which have operated harshly and inequitably in many individual cases, have been the cause of much unnecessary irritation, and in certain cases seriously reacted against economy.
I put down this Amendment because I cannot quite go the full distance of the hon. Member who moved this Motion, which says that the reductions now taking place in the pensions of ex-service men and dependants are unwarranted. In the nature of things, the amount of pension must be in proportion to the degree of disability, and, as the degree of disability grows less and less, it follows that
the sum total of pensions will, as we very much hope, grow less. If my hon. Friend had inserted in his Motion the words "in very many cases," then I should find myself in complete agreement with him. I would venture to remind the House that these discussions on the administration of the Ministry of Pensions are of vital importance, not only to ex-service men themselves, but to the whole country. The Minister of Pensions has a huge sum of money to administer—not less, I think, than one-tenth of our whole expenditure, and if, with that sum of money, we cannot purchase some measure of contentment and satisfaction, it does appear to me that there must be something wrong somewhere. My right hon. Friend has been highly successful in one respect. A pensions officer remarked to me on Friday last that any person who is now successful in getting what he is not entitled to from the Ministry of Pensions is a very clever person. He was making the boast—a very proper boast, and one that can be justified—that now, at any rate, there is very little leakage in the Ministry of Pensions. I believe that to be true, and we are grateful to the Minister for it. On the other hand, however, I do not think that the staunchest supporter of my right hon. Friend would argue the second point, that every disabled soldier gets all that he is entitled to from the Ministry of Pensions. That is not the position that either the country or this House or the Government would take up. I believe that, quite deliberately, they would take up another position, and would say, "If we must choose between the two, we would rather that a proportion of individuals got what they were not entitled to, we would rather that there should, indeed, be a certain amount of leakage, than that any of these disabled, broken men who are rendered destitute should be deprived of that to which they are entitled."
I am going to endeavour to make two points against my right hon. Friend. I suggest that his Ministry has failed in regard to two great difficulties which have always confronted the Ministry of Pensions. One of them is the question of attributability, which has been mentioned before, and the other is the question of aggravation. Both are problems of intense difficulty. First, how are you going to decide whether a man's disability is due to his service or not?
Secondly, what are you going to do in a ease where it is alleged that a man's disability was aggravated, but not caused by, the war? Both of these problems were settled, and I think finally settled, in 1918 by the Select Committee on Pensions, whose Report has been described as the soldiers' charter, and was accepted by the Government, by this House, and by every soldiers' organisation without exception. I suggest that the Ministry of Pensions have gone back on fundamental principles laid down in that Report, and, in so doing, have landed themselves into difficulties from which they will find it extremely difficult to extricate themselves. I ask the House to take their minds back to the principles which were laid down by that Select Committee, and which were then accepted. The first was that the man should appear before a Court which should resemble as much as possible an open court; that that court—the Medical Board—should decide upon his degree of disability, should tell the man what his disability was, and should translate that disability into terms of money; and that the decision given by that Board should be unalterable. I do ask the House to note this point, which at one time they acclaimed, that that decision, given in open court, should be unalterable by any official at the headquarters of the Ministry. The Select Committee felt strongly that if the Minister adhered to those principles it would rob any attack on him of a great deal of its value, and that, where it was decided that the disability was not attributable to war service at all, it should have an appeal to an independent tribunal.
How has my right hon. Friend, or some officials acting under him, carried out those principles in recent days? I have got a list here of 23 cases, which have occurred within the last two months, of the results of decisions by the Appeal Board, and the method of treatment that was adopted. These cases were given to me by an old Tory chairman of a pensions committee, who is one of the last people in the world not to sympathise with my Friend in his desire to effect economy. I have got the original findings, the findings of the Appeal Board, and what happened after. The first case was one of acute mania. The original tribunal said that it was a case of aggravation, and aggravation had passed away. The
Appeal Board did not refer to aggravation at all, but said that this acute mania was attributable to War service. The man was granted a full gratuity of £10 by the headquarters of the Ministry. My assertion in this as in the remainder of the 23 cases is that that is an utterly wrong finding, and at any rate that it is against the first principles upon which these Boards have operated since the findings of the Select Committee. The Appeal Board gave a decision, and the award in this case and the awards in the remaining cases are bringing into contempt these final and independent tribunals.
I submit that this official at headquarters, whoever he was, was bound to ask one question, and one question only. That question was, "What is the degree of disability?" and then his duty was automatic. When the degree of disability was decided he was bound to award a definite sum per week under this scheme. In every single one of these 23 cases a final award is made in response to the finding of the Appeal Board, and I invite my right hon. Friend to say, what I believe to be the fact, that this is an entire misconception on the part of the regional York headquarters, and I ask my right hon. Friend to put the matter right and to tell these officials, and the officials all over the country, that in making awards of this description, which are being made everywhere, they are exceeding their authority, and I ask that he shall give instruction which shall be completely foolproof in regard to this matter. Were it otherwise I should be bound to suggest that my right hon. Friend was taking up, in regard to the pensioners who are concerned, a position of "Heads I win, tails you lose." It is now said that he has no prerogative in the matter, that if an Appeal Board goes obviously wrong the Minister cannot correct it, but if, on the other hand, his officials are allowed to treat the findings of these Boards with what I suggest is something like contempt, the position would indeed become impossible.
Let us consider the problem of aggravation, and how it is being dealt with at the present time. Prior to the setting up of the Select Committee the attitude of all the soldiers' organisations throughout the country was that when a man entered the Army A1 and was discharged B2 or
B3, in that case, in order to avoid intolerable hardship in, at any rate, isolated cases, it must be presumed that his disability is due to his war service. My right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Minister for War, gave evidence before the Select Committee which greatly reassured the Committee. What he said was that where a man can show that his disability has been aggravated by 5 per cent, or even 2 per cent., then he shall receive by way of pension the full degree of that disability. I think that all of us took it for granted that the whole point of that was this: "We will accept that liability finally when once it has been proved that there has been aggravation by war service," because it is impossible otherwise to rely on equity being done. The position adopted by certain Ministry officials now in regard to aggravation is intolerable. The position was accepted that where there was aggravation the man should receive his final pension. Then, if aggravation has passed away, a man, who perhaps has been in receipt of a full 60 per cent, before, is put in a position that the whole of his pension is taken away on the ground that it was originally aggravated, which, of course, cannot be proved, as it cannot be disproved, and my right hon. Friend wrongly has laid his Ministry open to the charge of evasiveness and shiftiness, which none of us who know anything about it, of course, believe for a moment. But throughout the country, I assure him, there is a strong feeling growing up, most unfortunately, owing to this position being taken up on the doctrine of aggravation, that the Ministry of Pensions is trying to evade its liabilities on the matter.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that all over the country, at the present time, his officials are digging up super-payment as far as three years back. In some cases they are claiming them from widows. These are payments made in times of prosperity, and certain Bumbles are going around claiming back these payments alleged to have been wrongly made three years ago. I beg my right hon. Friend to give effect to a statement of his predecessor, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Pensions, that these demands of repayments should not be made. I ask him to
look up his evidence on this point. It is obvious to any thinking person that the amount recovered is out of all proportion to the intense irritation that is being caused. I understand that from the time of the appearance of a man before the medical board and final board, 30 forms have to be filled up. I saw a case the other day in regard to diet allowances in a case of the dietary of 50 men in Bradford. Originally that required two signatures. Now it requires 250 signatures. I give that on the authority of the Chairman of the Bradford Committee, and my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong. Whereas before, those 50 names would appear on one list, which would be ticked off and signed by the medical officer and secretary, each one now requires a separate form to be signed by five people, and that means 250 signatures in the place of two. The suggestion, of course—and the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us on this point—is that the cost of administration in his Department is going up in proportion to the amount of money that is being spent. It is suggested to him that an intolerable amount of work of a bureaucratic kind is retaining clerks with money which might otherwise go to the pensioner. I am sorry if I have detained the House unduly. Everyone knows the sympathy of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, and no one who has had any dealings with either of them doubts their sympathy. But I believe that these intensely difficult problems are fitting subjects for a Select Committee, and I am quite convinced that my right hon. Friend would receive very valuable assistance from that Select Committee, as his predecessor did by the one before, in spite of the fact that up to a certain period ho stoutly resisted it. I feel that the hon. Member who introduced the Motion has done a real service to ex-service men in allowing certain points to be ventilated.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no reason to complain of the tone or temper of the speeches just delivered. The Mover of this Motion has, in my judgment, been quite fair, and so has the Seconder. But I wish, instead of referring to outside cases such as advertisements of scandals at the Ministry of Pensions, that hon. Members would have addressed themselves to cases which have come under their own individual notice. My hon. Friend the
Mover of the Motion put his case in a very sane speech. He very kindly submitted to me yesterday the cases which he was to refer to. I and my officials have inquired into a large number of his cases and his pertinacious attitude has had results which redounded entirely to the credit of the Ministry of Pensions and my officials. My hon. Friend admits that. There is a suspicion—and I am going to deal frankly and freely with the general proposition—that because the Ministry of Pensions has been the one Department of the State where the Estimates for the succeeding year have been reduced by £3,000,000 beyond that suggested by the Geddes Committee Reports, that there is something wrong, that there is some trickery with regard to pensions, or, as my hon. Friend says, a hint has been sent to the various officials throughout, the country to effect economy at the expense of the pensioner. I stated in public, and I state now in the House, that so long as I am Minister of Pensions, whatever economies are effected in other Departments or in my own, they shall not be effected so far as the legitimate rights of the ex-service man are concerned. It is perfectly easy to bring forward individual cases, but I have to deal with 3,500,000 people, an amount equal to the population of the whole of Scotland, or very nearly equal. It would be very strange indeed, very nearly a miracle, if some hon. Members could not come to the House of Commons with some individual case. What are the facts indicated by my hon. Friend. He indicated that hundreds of cases could be produced. If that is so, why has he not produced hundreds of cases? He mentioned in his speech that there never was greater dissatisfaction in the country than at the present time, yet to-day on the Question Paper there is one question to the Minister of Pensions. This House is reflective of the spirit and the mind of the people of this country. Since I have been here there is no Minister who has been subjected to fewer questions and fewer Debates than I have been; in fact, I was going to apologise to the House to-night for daring to address them after so long an idleness in speaking. But I welcome this Motion, because I am grateful for the opportunity of explaining the course the administration of pensions must take in this country if pensions are to be in the future, as I hope they are
now, conscientiously, fairly, and justly administered. The first fact I would impress on the House is this. The expenditure on pensions must inevitably and necessarily be a declining quantity in the future. Members have remarked on the decrease in the Estimates. When I became Minister of Pensions, they amounted, I think, to £123,000,000 a year. They came down last year to £111,000,000, and this year they will be £90,000,000.

Mr. CAIRNS: How many men are dead?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will meet every point that has been made. One might think from that that the Ministry of Pensions was cutting down expenditure, just as the Army and the Navy are weeding out their active list. The facts are entirely the contrary. The true criterion of expenditure is not the estimated expenditure, but the actual expenditure. To estimate the expenditure of a Department you have to have certain facts ascertained or ascertainable. In other Departments, because of their experience, it was perfectly easy to estimate fairly accurately, but the Ministry of Pensions was a new Department, created hurriedly in the midst of the War, and no body of officials, however competent, could at any given moment estimate as accurately as the older Department. I think it would have been a bad thing for the feeling of the country and for the pensioners if a Minister of Pensions had to come down to ask for Supplementary Estimates. My predecessors and myself estimated on the substantial scale, because it would not have been a sign of gratitude to ex-service men if the Government were found coming time and again to the House of Commons for Supplementary Estimates in order to fulfil their obligations to ex-service men. Two years after the Armistice, that is, one and a half years ago, we had as many as 5,000 now claims to pensions per week, and during the last six months we had on the average 1,000 claims per week. In the second place, the diminution in the expenditure has been due to three important causes. First, there is the remarriage of widows and dependants; secondly, children grow beyond the pensionable age of 16 and go into employment; and, thirdly—and this is that point
which the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Cairns) has referred to—there is the unfortunate calamity of death; the gallant fellow who has served the State abroad has come home to die. In the last year, from these three causes alone, there has been a diminution of £2,500,000 in the Estimates.
Let me take the third reason. We have during the last three years spent no less than £45,000,000 on treatment and treatment allowances, whereas in 1917 we spent only £1,000,000. Is not that one proof, and I am going to give many more, that, so far from stinting the men, the country is prepared to pay for the welfare of ex-service men? The right thing to do is to attempt by all means in our power to restore these men to the social and industrial life of the community. Medical treatment has been given without stint. Every year at least 500,000 men get treatment, ranging from three or four weeks to eight or nine months, and in many cases over a year or more, and no single Member can stand up in this House and say that the treatment given by the Ministry of Pensions is otherwise than sympathetic, adequate and efficient. On any one day you will find no fewer than 125,000 men receiving treatment and allowances—and they are generous. In the past my Department absorbed no less than one-fifth of the medical profession of the country in order to give the best possible medical treatment to these men, who served us and sacrificed for us in the time of crisis. If we spent—willingly and generously and rightly—that enormous sum of £45,000,000 in three years, are we not expected to get any return from it? Are we not expected to find men better? Are we not expected to find pensions obviously and naturally decreasing? Considering the natural recuperative powers of the men, it would be a severe condemnation of the Government and of the Ministry if, after having expended that money, we could not come forward and show some beneficial results in return for it.
Lastly, may I quote another reason for that diminution? Foremost amongst it all there has been a diminution in the expenditure on administration. With the concurrence last year of the Departmental Committee, with whom I shall deal in a
moment, we reduced the membership of Medical Boards from three to two, and we are now reducing the committees in the country from 1,200 to less than 200; we have reduced the staff employed by those people, and we have reduced the staff of the Ministry itself by 12.2 per cent. There is not a single other Ministry that can show the same record. We have also by efficiency of administration saved hundreds of thousands of pounds by the quicker and more effective method of dealing with claims.
All these items have accounted for reduction of expenditure. This process cannot go on indefinitely. It is obvious that the further away we get from the War the less will be the amount of diminution in expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts)—I congratulate him on his able and very moderate speech—said that the time had come when we ought to get rid of irksome re-examinations by Medical Boards. That is exactly what we have done. Under the War Pensions Act I am establishing a final Medical Board, and I hope that by the end of next year every pensioner in the country will be examined to see whether his disability is final or not. I see it from the point of view of the man himself. If a man is neurasthenic there is nothing more dangerous for him than to be perpetually called up for examination. One of the first reforms I effected at the Ministry was to make the interval of time for calling up one year instead of every three or six months. From the point of view of employment, if a man is at work with a disability, the fact that you drag him up for re-examination affects both him and his employer. By the end of the year I hope we shall have the final Boards established, with the right to decide as to the finality of the disability of any pensioner.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the end of the year or the end of the pensions year?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The end of the year 1922. I have also guarded the pension when there is any doubt as to finality. I give the man in every case the benefit of the doubt. I have left the disability a conditional disability, so that if a man gets worse in the future he will be able again to go to a Medical Board and get a proportionate amount for his
disability. Let me discuss a question which has arisen quite recently. I notice that my Noble and gallant Friend, Field-Marshal Earl Haig, has repeatedly said throughout the country in the last few days that an attempt was to be made in 1923 to reduce pensions generally on the ground of the fall in the cost of living. It is well to be clear on the matter, and I am glad to have this opportunity of drawing attention to the statement. As the House knows, the gallant Field-Marshal is the distinguished head of the British Legion, which prides itself, and not without justice, on its watchfulness over the interests of ex-service men. But it is highly significant that Lord Haig's statement is not that pensions are being arbitrarily reduced now, nor that even an attempt is to be made to reduce them during this year, but that an attempt is to be made to reduce them a year hence.

Mr. C. WHITE: He does not know them all.

Mr. MACPHERSON: He speaks as the greatest soldier of them all.

Mr. WHITE: He does not mix among them. He knows very little about it.

Captain GEE: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Withdraw.

Mr. WHITE: I shall not withdraw.

Captain GEE: Wore you a soldier? It it easy to shout now.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the House realises when a point goes home. Here is this distinguished head of a great association of ex-soldiers saying that the problem which the British Legion has to face is not the reduction of pensions now, but a reduction in 1923, when a bargain ratified by this House must come under review in accordance with Article 24 of the Royal Warrant. I admire and commend the Field Marshal's vigilance, but a discussion of that bargain now would be outside the terms of the Motion before the House. Suffice it for me to say that if it is reviewed, I hope it will be reviewed with sympathy and fairness. If the gallant Field Marshal, however, thought for a moment, with all the information at his disposal, and all the information at the disposal of the British Legion, there was any attempt at arbitrary reduction being made now, the House will readily understand that he
would not willingly stand by without uttering his forceful protest.

Mr. WHITE rose——

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member will allow me to proceed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member the Mover of the Motion that he spent an unconscionable time in moving it, and he must leave time for other hon. Members to address the House.

Mr. WHITE: During that time I was interrupted on three or four occasions by the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend will recognise that I am now pressing a point which I regard as the crux of the whole matter. What are the true facts of the situation? The suggestion is made that I am responsible for cutting down pensions. It is known to the British Legion, of which Earl Haig is the head, that the Geddes Committee recommended reductions in rates, and that this attempt was resisted. But resisted by whom? By me. I was able to formulate alternative proposals for saving the contemplated amount and much more, through economies in administration, and both my resistance and these alternative proposals have received the whole-hearted support and sanction of the Cabinet.
Let us now examine what is actually taking place for I can assure the House I have nothing to hide. It is inevitable that when a man has a disability his condition either improves or gets worse. We know that there are many cases of improving health and the allegation is made that we are making a chance improvement in health an opportunity for issuing instructions—for that was the suggestion of the hon. Member for Western Derbyshire (Mr. White): he called it a hint, and the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts) called it a subtle method—but whatever you call it, the suggestion is there that we are taking this opportunity as a strong and powerful Government to influence Medical Boards throughout the country to cut down pensions. Why should we do so? What have I to gain by doing that? The controlling power in the Ministry of Pensions is in the hands of ex-service men. I think I am right in saying that
practically every doctor I employ is an ex-service man and 96.8 of the men who control the destinies of ex-service men are ex-service men themselves. What interest have they in cutting down their comrades pensions and allowances? In my judgment the accusation is absurd and base. I know these men are as heartily in sympathy with the interests of their colleagues and comrades as any of us, and I strongly resent that it should be said of me or my Ministry or the officials of the Ministry, that we in any way gave a hint to anybody to reduce the legitimate rights of the ex-service men of this country. I do not rely upon that statement alone. I will point to the figures. I will not bore the House with figures, but I will indicate one or two of the percentages because the accusation made against us is a very serious one.
If there had been, as is suggested, a general and artificial reduction of pensions, it would inevitably be reflected in the figures of assessment, but the figures show exactly the contrary. As the House will be aware, men who are awarded what is termed a "conditional" pension are now normally given that pension for a year and are medically re-examined at the end of the year. As far back as the figures available in my Department go, which is two years, I find that actually pensions are now decreasing less than they were two years ago. In 1920, taking all the results of the medical re-examination of 500,000 men for six months, the average reduction in the rate of assessment owing to the improvement of the man's health was as much as 6½ points in the pensions scale; in other words, something like 19.5 per cent. During the last six months the average rate has been 4.3 points, or something like 13 per cent, only in the scale, so that, far from there being any stimulus on the part of the Pensions Department to cut down pensions, the reduction is actually less now than it was two years ago. We know very well that the majority of wounds are comparatively slight, I am thankful to say. I will not tire the House by reading the figures out, but the gist of them amounts to this, that as between now and a year ago the proportion of cases in each grade and for each degree of pension—ranging from the seriously disabled man who is getting
80, 90, or 100 per cent. disablement, to the minor injury which is compensated for by a weekly allowance for one, two, or three years—remains exactly the same. That is to say, 7 per cent. now are and 7 per cent. a year ago were getting pensions of 70 per cent. or over. What is happening is what anyone who takes a broad view of the situation would know must happen. The men who have comparatively minor degrees of disorder or injury have steadily improved in health by the medical treatment we have provided, as well as by their natural powers of recuperation, while, on the other hand, those who were very severely disabled and whom treatment could not benefit have been left to draw their pensions.
I understand quite well that through out certain parts of the country there is some misgiving as to the results of the reexaminations, but what have I done? I have established Medical Appeal Boards, with specialists on every one of them, and on appeal not a single reduction is confirmed without a personal examination by the Appeal Board with a specialist on it. The House forgets that Members who bring forward cases against the Ministry at the present time never refer to the cases which have been admitted. These Medical Appeal Boards have in a great proportion of cases granted an increase and not a decrease of the amount of pension, but never a word is said about that, and I claim that as a striking example of the fairness with which the Ministry of Pensions conducts its work at the present time, and if, as my hon Friend wishes—and I quite agree with him—we are going to have finality in the amount of disability, what have I provided? I have provided that there should be a jury appointed by the Lord Chancellor, of two doctors and one ex-service man, to consider any appeal which comes from the award of my Ministry as to finality. I ask the House in common fairness: Could any fairer system be placed before the country than that which I have just adumbrated to the House?
Now let me come to a much more difficult point—and I know a great case has been made of this throughout the country—on the important question of change of entitlement. The charge is made that the Ministry of Pensions not only changes entitlement, but cancels the
pension altogether where at some given period in a pensioner's life a pension has been awarded. Let me say at once that no one regrets more whole-heartedly or more profoundly than I do that there should be this review, or that it should be necessary; but I could not in the discharge of my responsibility as a Minister of the Crown act on the principle that once a mistake has been made, it must never be rectified.
The facts are very simple. During the last year of the War, and during the first year after the Armistice, when thousands of men were being demobilised and discharged every day, the work of dealing with claims to pension was a business of so large a volume that it was perfectly impossible for the staff of the Ministry of Pensions to deal with them at times. We had as many as 350,000 men in the military hospitals at that time. We had discharges of 60,000 men a day. Those men were coming from every corner of the globe. They had no medical certificates. They were so anxious to get out of the Army that they never went to the doctors to be re-examined. They rushed out with no evidence that they had any sign of disability; they were so glad to get out of the Army. In the course of time they came back, and with the merest prima facie evidence they were granted pensions. I came across so many cases of that kind that I found it necessary to review entitlement in those cases. It was a matter of great regret to me, but I found that all over the country men were drawing pensions to which they were not entitled. I will give a case I had yesterday. A man drew £500 in pension. I stopped the pension. When I use the first person the House will realise that I mean my Ministry. I had the most furious letters. If the hon. Member had only known of it, he would have stood up in the House to-day, and with impassioned eloquence denounced mc as the most cruel Minister of modern times. When I investigated this case, I found that this man, who had drawn £500, did not serve 24 hours in the Army. Another man was drawing a pension because he lost a finger, but when we examined the facts, what did we find? That he lost his finger, not in the War, but before the War. Another man is indignant because we stopped his pension, his claim against the State being that he acquired obesity during the War.
I am only enumerating a few of the oases, but am I, a Minister of the Crown, to be expected not to examine them when I find there are cases of that kind still surviving? The first men who would convict me of treason to them would be the ex-service men who gallantly fought. Another fact is that not only was the demobilisation rapid, but the regiments came from all corners of the globe. Their medical certificates were with the units in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and East Africa, and it is only recently that I have been able to collect, with a skilled staff, all these medical cards. No less than 31,000,000 of these cards, covering half an acre in cabinets, exist at the present time, so that the House will realise the amount of work this Ministry has had to do. But I am glad to say that the process of review is now nearly complete, but I would like to point out that we have only revised 2 per cent. of those cases. What has been the result? Where the medical boards have reviewed these cases they have, in the vast majority of cases, given the benefit of the doubt to the man. That is the principle I have favoured during the whole of the time I have been Minister. I believe it is the wish of the country that where there is a doubt, the man should, in every case, get the benefit of it.
I am not going to deal with the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I was glad to see that my hon. Friend for West Bromwich paid a compliment to the Medical Appeal Board, and I admire him for his courage. It is provided that if I have any cases which I cannot admit to pension I must submit them to that tribunal if the claimant so wishes. That tribunal, by law, is composed of a doctor, a lawyer and an ex-service man. If ever an ex-service man hopes to get justice, surely it must be from a court so composed. In my judgment these courts are now working extremely well. There are many cases I have to submit to them by law. I am hoping that a conference will take place between my officials and the Lord Chancellor's officials, because I believe there are cases that it would be wisdom to re-open, where fresh and undoubted evidence has been obtained by the man substantially supporting the case he has submitted.
My hon. Friend has asked that a Select Committee should be appointed. I strongly resist that suggestion. I think I may fairly claim that no single Department has ever been subjected to such rigorous scrutiny as that of the Ministry of Pensions. In 1919 a Select Committee of this House was appointed. I think my hon. Friend was a distinguished member of that Committee. He will agree that every possible body of evidence was consulted and examined, and I believe that my right hon. and gallant Friend Lord Haig himself gave evidence before that Committee. The Government practically accepted the whole of its recommendations, and they were embodied, if I remember rightly, in the Royal Pensions Warrant and War Pensions Act, 1919. I was not satisfied with that. The public opinion of the time drew attention to various things. Long before the Geddes Committee I took myself the step of appointing a Committee composed of 19 members to do exactly the same thing for my Department that the Geddes Committee did for other Departments of the Government. I selected distinguished Members of this House, who represented practically every quarter. The hon. Member for the Western Isles sneers——

Dr. MURRAY: No. I beg your pardon, I was not. I was complimenting you.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That Committee was representative. I asked ex-service men to be on it. I asked representatives of the local war pensions committees. I asked everyone who preferred a claim to be representative of the interests of ex-service men. After eight months that Committee reported to me. I had allowed them during their sittings to examine any official and any document they wanted. They gave me 168 recommendations, and of those I think 116 are now in active operation. Not only that, but since then under the War Pensions Act of last year I have appointed an Advisory Committee, and I have met representatives from this House, of the country, and of various shades of public opinion along with the ex-service men. I have consulted them and I intend to consult them more. I do not know any body of men so full of knowledge on this question or with more sympathy for these men than the workers in this Department. I have also had the privilege and
advantage of having had a consultation with the Standing Joint Committee composed of ex-service officers and ex-service men, and they have considered the hard cases. I have discussed these cases with them and I have discussed their policy, and the result is that we have been enabled, through sympathy and earnest endeavour, to meet the difficulties of the problem as they arise day by day.
It is all very well to come forward here and recite cases of hardship. I have come across cases of great hardship in my own constituency, but in regard to these cases, what do I find? If there does happen to be a case of hardship, as a rule it is magnified in the Press, and wherever I can I endeavour to meet hon. Members who have had these eases brought to their notice in order to discuss them. I would remind the House that for the hundreds of thousands of cases which we do efficiently and well it is taken for granted that we get no thanks, although a great deal is made of even one bad case. The whole problem is still one which requires our sympathy, but it also requires our courage. We have got to see to it that not only the State but the public and the people of the country are protected. We all know well that very often gratitude is short-lived. At any rate, we should all make sure that the men who sacrificed so much and stood by us have every legitimate right of theirs safeguarded. At the same time we must have courage as Members of Parliament and leaders of public opinion to recognise that when a claim is unjustly made it must fail. We should continue to uphold the rights of the ex-service men and at the same time resist the blandishments and devices of party while carrying out the outstanding national duty of our day.

Major M. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very good defence of the general administration of his office. But I am inclined to think that he has rather missed the case that was being made against him. I am quite prepared to pay a tribute to the Ministry of Pensions for the work they have done, and I think they are entitled to claim great credit for that work. It was very difficult work, and there was a great chance of their being imposed upon. That being so, I realise that they have to be on the alert. At the same time, there is no doubt that Members of Parliament are getting a large number
of complaints about individual instances in which it is claimed that the Ministry have not dealt with them as well as they ought to have done. The right hon. Gentleman asked for some individual instances, and a great number have been given to him, but none of them have been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, and that is what we wanted him to deal with to-night. My hon. Friend who started this Debate gave innumerable instances, and he seems to have been more fortunate than I have been in getting redress in many of those cases. The few cases which I would like to deal with to-night I have not got redressed, and that is why I should like to bring them to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say I have not many complaints, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am putting the case against him too high. I do not want to engage in any crusade against the Ministry. I realise that they had a difficult task and that they have performed it, on the whole, very well.
I should like to draw attention to one specific instance, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it, either now or at some future time. He knows it well. I have put it before him on previous occasions, and I ask the House to assist me in getting what I consider would be justice to a widow in the North of Scotland. The husband of the woman was taken into the Army during the War. He went abroad, and after two years in the Near East he unfortunately died in hospital. The hospital authorities held a post-mortem examination, and the doctor who conducted it said that, in his opinion, death was due, probably, to dilatation of the heart and alcoholism. That is all the evidence before the Ministry of Pensions except two entries in the man's service record of convictions for being drunk. Yet on that evidence the Ministry found that the death was mainly due to alcoholism and refused a pension to the widow and her three children. The man was a man of good character. There was no suggestion that he was given to drink before he went into the Army, and as, at the end of the War, he re-signed on for further service when he might have come home, it was clear the authorities did not consider him as given to alcoholism at that particular time. How is
the widow to meet a case of that kind? What right had the hospital authorities to hold a post-morten examination? Even if they had the right, is not the evidence put forward on the strength of it entirely ex parte? There was no one at the post-mortem to watch the interests of the widow, and surely she ought now to be allowed to make any representation she desires before the case is finally settled. Of course, the evidence is now all gone, but I suggest this is a case where the Ministry did not give the benefit of the doubt to the soldier, and I would like to know on what ground the authorities could attribute the death mainly to one cause when two reasons for it were shown. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Ministry are able to justify this particular conclusion. I have submitted the evidence which I have received from the Ministry to medical experts—and that is all the evidence that was before the Final Tribunal, before which it went—and they have given me their opinion that injustice has been done in this case. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to seek power from Parliament to enable him to reopen cases after they have gone before the Final Appeal Tribunal, but I gather that was only to be in the case where additional evidence could be brought forward by the party aggrieved. In the case I am putting before the House, there cannot, of course, be additional evidence, by the very nature of the case, although I am certain it is a case which ought to be looked into and re-investigated by a competent tribunal.
There is another case I should have liked to bring before the House, not of the same kind, but which presents another grievance against the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. I understand, however, that it is difficult to get the attention of the House at this time of the evening on matters of this kind. It is cases of this nature—few, it may be, in number—which have come before all Members of the House and which are creating some misgiving in the minds, not only of Members of this House, but of ex-service men outside that the Ministry of Pensions is trying to economise at the expense of the pensioners. I am quite certain there might be a temptation in certain Departments that do desire to cut down expenses at the present time to do that and I hope
the right hon. Gentleman will carry oat the promise he has given to-night steadfastly to set himself against anything of the kind, and in particular to give special attention to all those specific instances that have been put before him this evening.

Captain GEE: It is very encouraging to ex-service men to discover that at last we have found many champions of all parties from all quarters of this House. I am sorry it is so late in the day. I am only going to deal with two particular points that have been touched on, I am afraid, somewhat lightly and, without any desire to give offence, by Members who, I am afraid, have very little knowledge of what they have been talking about, particularly in regard to the Appeal Tribunal. I do not think that in my experience I have ever heard any sentence so bandied about and played with as the Appeal Tribunal when hon. Members are discussing pensions. The more I hear so many talk about it the more convinced I am that there are very few who know the real working of these tribunals. It is only because I have been there so often myself that I venture to inflict my voice on the House to-night. I have taken part in no less than 29 appeals before the Appeal Tribunal, and 27 of those have been decided in favour of the applicant. I have such a firm belief and such a faith in the efficiency of the Appeal Tribunal that I have refused to enter into any correspondence with any applicant who has had his case tried by the Appeal Tribunal.
I now want to deal with a particular type of cases that are often talked about in a light and glib and airy manner in public among our own friends—among ex-service men—and, very often, by hon. Members of this House, but which, when they are investigated, bring discredit upon ex-service men in general, and upon the Ministry of Pensions in particular. I am going to weary the House with four cases that I have had hurled at me during the last two months at political meetings. The facts are unpleasant, but it is only a coward who shirks facts. A case was brought before me at a meeting in the Midlands, a scandalous case, of an ex-service man who had lost a leg in the War, and who was in receipt of no pen-
sion. Of course, much had been made of it, and I undertook there and then to inquire into it. It is an unpleasant thing, but let us face it. I found that this man had lost his leg in the War, but that he lost it through a self-inflicted wound in order to dodge the trenches.
Another case was brought before me not very long ago, and I am sorry to say that it was the case of a sergeant in my own company, who fought under me in Gallipoli. It was brought to my notice, I am sorry to say, by a political party, and I am ashamed to think that one of my own sergeants should be in that position. I found that he had got a pension of five shillings a week; and I am going, if I may, to pay the Minister of Pensions a compliment, in saying that he softened his heart, because, if the Minister had been just, and had not allowed his feelings to get the better of his common-sense—of the hard-headed Scottish business side of himself—he would not have given fivepence, for the man's disability was not due to the War at all, but was entirely due to a particular disease which we had better not discuss.
Not long ago there was a case which was bandied all over England. Great publicity was given to it in the British Legion Press, in the public Press, and at meetings up and down the country. It was the case of an ex-service man who had committed suicide. Some hon. Members may remember it. He left a widow and children, and he had been wounded five times. I was disgusted when I heard of the case, and I do not know what I was not going to do to the Minister of Pensions. I said I would not deal with it until I came back. I came home for the week-end and received all information about it, and I went down on the Monday night; there was a full meeting to hear me deal with the case. I told them point blank that it was a case that I would not discuss in public. Then the booing began—the usual thanks that you expect and never get—but I threw out the offer that if two of the man's friends would come with me for 10 minutes and go through the papers I had brought down——

Mr. WHITE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain GEE: —if they would come with me and look at the papers and go through the case, then, if they cared to go on a public platform and talk about the case I was quite willing to let them do so, but I would not do it myself. We went into a room behind the platform and discussed the matter. Both of these men were my political opponents, and were both ex-service men——

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS I.

ART AND SCIENCEBUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £243,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year priding on the 31st day of March, 1923, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[Note: £131,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon, Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Hessle Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 10th April and published, be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 10.—(Nursing to be an exempted employment.)

(1) Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as though there were inserted therein after paragraph (b) the following new paragraph:—
(bb) Employment as a female professional nurse for the sick or as a female probationer undergoing training for employment as such a nurse.

(2) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert as new Sub-sections:
(2) Whereas the result of the formation of any company or of the amalgamation of any companies, or of any other like process, any person, company or body of persons is succeeded by a company or body as employer in any business or undertaking, the Minister may, in determining for the purposes of the provisions of paragraph (d) of Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act what is the normal practice of the employer or whether a person has completed three years' service in the employment, treat the normal practice of the old employer as being the normal practice of the new employer and treat any service under the old employer as being service under the new employer.
(3) Any certificate with respect to employment in the service of a railway company or joint committee of two or more such companies given by the Minister under paragraph (d) of Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act, as amended by Act No. 1 of 1921, at any time before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, shall, if the conditions on which it was given so long remain unchanged continue in force for a period of five years from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, notwithstanding anything therein to the contrary.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These two Sub-sections are for the purpose of carrying out an undertaking which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). The second of the two Sub-sections deals with the period of five years which was referred to in debate, and will, I trust, meet the case to which attention was then drawn. The earlier Sub-section has reference to the anticipation that there may be a difficulty in a case in which certain companies may be amalgamated, and that it may be
held that service in a separate company does not carry with it the same rights, and that service conditions should be precisely the same as if the service were in an amalgamated company. We want to avoid that difficulty. I believe Subsection (2) will carry that out.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) leave out "(2)," and insert:
(4) Sub-section (1) of.

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Legal Proceedings.)

(2) Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act, which provides that a person who for the purpose of obtaining benefit or for certain other purposes knowingly makes any false statement or false representation shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, shall have effect as though six months were therein substituted for three months.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (2).

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I agree with this Amendment. The effect is to make the maximum penalty for false representation three months instead of six. The difficulty is that delays and law charges might have been caused whereas, if we have a maximum of three months, there could be a summary hearing, which is much more satisfactory.

CLAUSE 16.—(Construction, saving, short title, commencement, and duration.)

(5) This Act shall not apply to Ireland except in so far as the provisions thereof may be applied to Ireland by Order in Council made under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922.

(8) This Act shall come into operation on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Subsection (5) and insert a new Sub-section.
(5) Provision may be made by Order in Council under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, for applying this Act, with or without modifications, to Ireland exclusive of Northern Ireland, but except in so far as it is so applied this Act shall not apply to Ireland.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment, to make the position clear. There may be some doubt in the original Bill.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (8), after the word "shall," insert "except as therein otherwise expressly provided, be deemed to have."

Agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.